"It goes beyond animation effects, too. People have commented on OS X's "gumdrop" window controls, which look cute and friendly, but few seem to notice they're arranged like a traffic light, which is intuitive for most people. Red, yellow, and green circles--red closes the window, yellow minimizes, and green zooms."
And, as many have pointed out, these are totally unfriendly to the colorblind (even with the UI "additions" of putting a plus-sign in the green button, a minus-sign in the yellow, etc).
He was rude, no question, but he was right. If you're missing 200 lines, you're not going to get a picture -- you're going to get severe artifacts or nothing at all. This isn't like old broadcast television where you could get away with some snow.
For example, I have a DirecTV high-def Tivo box. It has an antenna for picking up over-the-air signals. If I don't get a signal, there's no picture, period. If I get part of a signal, still no picture. Only when I get "full-strength" do I see anything.
I remember an old cop show where one guy asked "What's the combination to the holding cell?" and another guy answered "4 to the left, 4 to the right, 4 to the left, 4 to the right".:)
"One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of.NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms."
I think "not portable" is a bit strong of a phrase. It certainly is portable: the CLR is elegant, well-documented and easily could be rewritten (except for maybe Windows Forms). The problem is that MS isn't going out actively to port it like Sun did with Java. They're relying on 3rd-party developers to do the work.
I guarantee you when Longhorn launches, and Avalon (on top of.NET) becomes the default standard for windowing, there will be a much great rush to get the CLR ported.
That's how I took down GNAA's website. I was so sick of their trolling I used a similar script and let it run on my Mac box overnight. The site went down for a good 12 hours until they were "smart" enough to start redirecting. Idiots.
Agree with everything but the printers. They're excellent. We use them througout my company, I've bought a few for myself, and they hold up extremely well. I don't buy ink/toner through HP though (that's highway robbery, and another story).
That's a fallacy. Try running a game with vsync on at 60 and 120. Assuming the game runs at a consistent framerate, you'll definitely notice a difference.
Of course they market the same part with different prices. IT folks can gladly use 512 MB, while home users might be hesitant. That's one of the reasons, when I bought my 20" LCD from Dell, that I ordered as a "Small Business" customer instead of a "Home" user. In total, I saved about 25%, or $250 at the time.
"Wow..loser. Unplayable below 60 fps? I suspect you're not a gamer so much as a kid in HS trying to fill a void w/FPS. Having too low an FPS can hurt, but 30 to 60 won't make you a better gamer."
Yes... because I want games to run as the developers intended -- as the art folks intended, as the AI guys intended -- I am not a gamer. *rolls eyes*
I have 2.1 sound...so I couldn't really tell you. I know that either ALSA or the (for pay) OSS DOES support multispeakers. Doom3 for linux supports this as well (under linux).
5.1 or 7.1 sound. Last I saw of the Audigy drivers, they only supported "mirroring" 2.1 sound along the back channels. I have a fairly high-end 7.1 setup and I would want more than just mirroring.
How about EAX?
Give me a way to tell, and I'll let you know. I do know that the game sounds the same in both windows and linux.
Ok, you don't know what EAX is. EAX provides environmental effects -- for example, it's what makes the sounds clang off the corridors in Doom, or makes an NPC sound positionally different in Wow if they're behind you vs. in front of you when you click on them. Last I checked, EAX wasn't supported at all in Linux. You may *think* the game sounds the same, but it probably doesn't.
Does it eat up your CPU cycles (it did the last time I tried the SB Audigy on Linux).
What exactly are you refering to? EAX? The sound in general? The game would eat up CPU in windows too..its a game, and its doing alot of things. I know that my IM client continues to chime away as people sign off and on, and without studdering.
The sound card's CPU usually handles EAX and multiple speakers. If the drivers offload to the main CPU (which many Linux drivers do) you end up eating up cycles doing the same effects. Cycles the game could be using to render graphics or handle AI.
The idea that your IM client chimes in the background isn't amazing. Most people who play Windows games have a few IM programs running in the back, and (if you're not playing multiplayer), a P2P app or two downloading stuff.
id is a notable exception. They make some damn fine games, and they run damn fine on multiple platforms. Blizzard (to a certain extent) does the same thing.
Which is getting to my point...it not Linux that's holding up games on linux, its the game developers choosing not to support it. But there's no technical reason they couldn't if they wanted to.
I agree, it's mostly marketshare problems. However, that doesn't defeat the problem that there's still no DirectX-style API for other game functions in Linux (input, network and sound). That goes a long distance in making games easier to port.
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks. I haven't seen one comparison of Windows/Linux id software that doesn't have Windows running about 10-20fps on the same hardware.
I get about 30-40 on average, and both linux and windows drop when there's a large # of monsters on screen (well, imps..for some reason it didn't slow when the mancubus came out).
Ouch. Not a gamer, huh?:) I find Doom unplayable on anything less than 60 fps. And, again, comparing the two platforms, I've never seen Doom 3 on Linux perform as well as Doom 3 on Windows using the same hardware.
That's impressive.
Not sure if its sarcasm or not..but I pointed it out b/c alot of people claim the only way to get games playable is to kill your desktop / WM. I put that in to show its simply not true.
It was sarcasm.
Or, just possible, the drivers aren't optimized, there's too much cruft in the sound system and there isn't a unified API for network, sound and inputs like DirectX (OpenGL is only for graphics).
Yes, those are certinaly possiblities. But the fact that Doom 3 plays very well on linux leads me to think that those aren't really the causes for any slowdown. If I play another game w/a linux client that doesn't perform well, i'd be included to blame the game developers, not my linux system.
Take the sims for example; thats slow even on good (fast) windows machines...proof that developer can make a game really slow if they don't try hard enough.
The big difference is that id has a track record of sticking with O
Does multispeaker support work fine? How about EAX? Does it eat up your CPU cycles (it did the last time I tried the SB Audigy on Linux).
"Once id released the Doom 3"
id is a notable exception. They make some damn fine games, and they run damn fine on multiple platforms. Blizzard (to a certain extent) does the same thing.
"It DOES run at the same speed as it does in windows"
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks. I haven't seen one comparison of Windows/Linux id software that doesn't have Windows running about 10-20fps on the same hardware.
"I even run it thru KDE, with my IM client still going."
That's impressive.
"If it doesn't run reliably or fast, its probably the game developers fault (or possibly yours, for having a bad setup)."
Or, just possible, the drivers aren't optimized, there's too much cruft in the sound system and there isn't a unified API for network, sound and inputs like DirectX (OpenGL is only for graphics).
Give me tactical shooters like Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six that run at the same speed reliably, without having to futz around with X-Windows or sound card drivers, and I'll get rid of Windows on my home computer too. Heck, if they can do it on Mac, I'd be just as happy.
Disagree. I own an Archos gMini400 (video player) and it's the same principle: small screen. I've stored more than 20 movies on the thing and love it. Nothing wiles away time better than watching a good flick on the train home from work.
"But with that Playstation brand name, people are going to be thinking of it as a video game system above all else"
Doubtful. Many early Japanese PS2 buyers bought it more for it being a cheap DVD player than a game system. Think how often your PS2 (if you have one) has been the DVD player to use when friends come over. Mine got quite a workout.
"It was saved by severe screw-ups by both Nintendo and Sega."
Actually, the Playstation never needed saving, as Sony recognized the first rule of getting console marketshare: get lots and lots of developers. They had a ton signed on before the system was even released, while Nintendo and Sega (as you rightfully put it) bullied 3rd parties in an effort to sell more of their own wares. If anything, it's Nintendo and Sega that need saving nowadays.
The same way Macromedia Flash made it feasible to create a whole new genre of cartoons (web-based). If you put easier tools in the hands of the artists, more (and sometimes better) art is created. You honestly think GTA3 would've been successful if they were still drawing out individual sprites using assembly, like they used to?
As I mentioned in another post, Sony is not competing with the DS. They're competing with just about every portable video player on the market (and the eventual iPod Video, whenever they decide to release one). The DS is a game player that's wireless. The PSP is a game player that's wireless, plays MP3s and plays movies (just pop a MPEG4 on a Memory Card). The only limitation to its success will be memory card storage costs. At $250, comparing the PSP to portable video players, with that quality a screen... it's a steal.
I don't think so at all. It's not just a game console: it's an MP3 and movie player (MPEG4s). Granted, the big limitation for awhile will be storage (memory sticks don't hold much), but you shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's machine. Personally, I'd compare it to any of the various video players out right now. For a screen like that, it's a steal.
"I assumed that overclocking a slower chip to a faster speed would produce more heat than a chip designed to work at that speed."
It doesn't. Every batch of wafers is tested within certain tolerances.
* If they run fine all the time at 1.42 GHz, they're branded 1.42 and roll out the door. * If they run unreliably at 1.42, but work fine at the lower speed, they get pushed out the door at that speed. "Unreliably" usually means "failed a test once out of several hundred runs". * If a chip fails multiple times it's tossed.
All 3 chips are identical, it's just that the 1.42s are known to reliably run at that speed. If you're an overclocker, you take that 1 out of 500 runs error as a risk that's worth taking.
Slashdot Mirror
"It goes beyond animation effects, too. People have commented on OS X's "gumdrop" window controls, which look cute and friendly, but few seem to notice they're arranged like a traffic light, which is intuitive for most people. Red, yellow, and green circles--red closes the window, yellow minimizes, and green zooms."
And, as many have pointed out, these are totally unfriendly to the colorblind (even with the UI "additions" of putting a plus-sign in the green button, a minus-sign in the yellow, etc).
He was rude, no question, but he was right. If you're missing 200 lines, you're not going to get a picture -- you're going to get severe artifacts or nothing at all. This isn't like old broadcast television where you could get away with some snow.
For example, I have a DirecTV high-def Tivo box. It has an antenna for picking up over-the-air signals. If I don't get a signal, there's no picture, period. If I get part of a signal, still no picture. Only when I get "full-strength" do I see anything.
"Changes include Mac OS X frontend support"
"Who's ready for a Mac Mini frontend?"
Did I miss something? Since when did the Mac Mini not run OS X?
I remember an old cop show where one guy asked "What's the combination to the holding cell?" and another guy answered "4 to the left, 4 to the right, 4 to the left, 4 to the right". :)
I think what the original poster was referring to was OSes outside the *nixes, like Symbian and other embedded OSes that run Java.
"One of the biggest criticisms I have heard of .NET is that it is not portable to non Microsoft/Windows platforms."
.NET) becomes the default standard for windowing, there will be a much great rush to get the CLR ported.
I think "not portable" is a bit strong of a phrase. It certainly is portable: the CLR is elegant, well-documented and easily could be rewritten (except for maybe Windows Forms). The problem is that MS isn't going out actively to port it like Sun did with Java. They're relying on 3rd-party developers to do the work.
I guarantee you when Longhorn launches, and Avalon (on top of
That's how I took down GNAA's website. I was so sick of their trolling I used a similar script and let it run on my Mac box overnight. The site went down for a good 12 hours until they were "smart" enough to start redirecting. Idiots.
Agree with everything but the printers. They're excellent. We use them througout my company, I've bought a few for myself, and they hold up extremely well. I don't buy ink/toner through HP though (that's highway robbery, and another story).
That's a fallacy. Try running a game with vsync on at 60 and 120. Assuming the game runs at a consistent framerate, you'll definitely notice a difference.
Of course they market the same part with different prices. IT folks can gladly use 512 MB, while home users might be hesitant. That's one of the reasons, when I bought my 20" LCD from Dell, that I ordered as a "Small Business" customer instead of a "Home" user. In total, I saved about 25%, or $250 at the time.
"Wow..loser. Unplayable below 60 fps? I suspect you're not a gamer so much as a kid in HS trying to fill a void w/FPS. Having too low an FPS can hurt, but 30 to 60 won't make you a better gamer."
Yes... because I want games to run as the developers intended -- as the art folks intended, as the AI guys intended -- I am not a gamer. *rolls eyes*
Good point. If someone tricks me into giving them my ATM card, how is it the bank's fault? It's essentially the same thing.
4.1? You don't mean 5.1?
Does multispeaker support work fine?
:) I find Doom unplayable on anything less than 60 fps. And, again, comparing the two platforms, I've never seen Doom 3 on Linux perform as well as Doom 3 on Windows using the same hardware.
I have 2.1 sound...so I couldn't really tell you. I know that either ALSA or the (for pay) OSS DOES support multispeakers. Doom3 for linux supports this as well (under linux).
5.1 or 7.1 sound. Last I saw of the Audigy drivers, they only supported "mirroring" 2.1 sound along the back channels. I have a fairly high-end 7.1 setup and I would want more than just mirroring.
How about EAX?
Give me a way to tell, and I'll let you know. I do know that the game sounds the same in both windows and linux.
Ok, you don't know what EAX is. EAX provides environmental effects -- for example, it's what makes the sounds clang off the corridors in Doom, or makes an NPC sound positionally different in Wow if they're behind you vs. in front of you when you click on them. Last I checked, EAX wasn't supported at all in Linux. You may *think* the game sounds the same, but it probably doesn't.
Does it eat up your CPU cycles (it did the last time I tried the SB Audigy on Linux).
What exactly are you refering to? EAX? The sound in general? The game would eat up CPU in windows too..its a game, and its doing alot of things. I know that my IM client continues to chime away as people sign off and on, and without studdering.
The sound card's CPU usually handles EAX and multiple speakers. If the drivers offload to the main CPU (which many Linux drivers do) you end up eating up cycles doing the same effects. Cycles the game could be using to render graphics or handle AI.
The idea that your IM client chimes in the background isn't amazing. Most people who play Windows games have a few IM programs running in the back, and (if you're not playing multiplayer), a P2P app or two downloading stuff.
id is a notable exception. They make some damn fine games, and they run damn fine on multiple platforms. Blizzard (to a certain extent) does the same thing.
Which is getting to my point...it not Linux that's holding up games on linux, its the game developers choosing not to support it. But there's no technical reason they couldn't if they wanted to.
I agree, it's mostly marketshare problems. However, that doesn't defeat the problem that there's still no DirectX-style API for other game functions in Linux (input, network and sound). That goes a long distance in making games easier to port.
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks. I haven't seen one comparison of Windows/Linux id software that doesn't have Windows running about 10-20fps on the same hardware.
I get about 30-40 on average, and both linux and windows drop when there's a large # of monsters on screen (well, imps..for some reason it didn't slow when the mancubus came out).
Ouch. Not a gamer, huh?
That's impressive.
Not sure if its sarcasm or not..but I pointed it out b/c alot of people claim the only way to get games playable is to kill your desktop / WM. I put that in to show its simply not true.
It was sarcasm.
Or, just possible, the drivers aren't optimized, there's too much cruft in the sound system and there isn't a unified API for network, sound and inputs like DirectX (OpenGL is only for graphics).
Yes, those are certinaly possiblities. But the fact that Doom 3 plays very well on linux leads me to think that those aren't really the causes for any slowdown. If I play another game w/a linux client that doesn't perform well, i'd be included to blame the game developers, not my linux system.
Take the sims for example; thats slow even on good (fast) windows machines...proof that developer can make a game really slow if they don't try hard enough.
The big difference is that id has a track record of sticking with O
"My SB Audigy 2 worked fine"
Does multispeaker support work fine? How about EAX? Does it eat up your CPU cycles (it did the last time I tried the SB Audigy on Linux).
"Once id released the Doom 3"
id is a notable exception. They make some damn fine games, and they run damn fine on multiple platforms. Blizzard (to a certain extent) does the same thing.
"It DOES run at the same speed as it does in windows"
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks. I haven't seen one comparison of Windows/Linux id software that doesn't have Windows running about 10-20fps on the same hardware.
"I even run it thru KDE, with my IM client still going."
That's impressive.
"If it doesn't run reliably or fast, its probably the game developers fault (or possibly yours, for having a bad setup)."
Or, just possible, the drivers aren't optimized, there's too much cruft in the sound system and there isn't a unified API for network, sound and inputs like DirectX (OpenGL is only for graphics).
"M$ can only dream of"
"M$ are n00bs"
"vulnerable to manupulation by SEOs"
"Score:5, Interesting"
I guess "Interesting" in the same way watching 14 year-olds blow up on message boards is "interesting"...
Give me tactical shooters like Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six that run at the same speed reliably, without having to futz around with X-Windows or sound card drivers, and I'll get rid of Windows on my home computer too. Heck, if they can do it on Mac, I'd be just as happy.
Disagree. I own an Archos gMini400 (video player) and it's the same principle: small screen. I've stored more than 20 movies on the thing and love it. Nothing wiles away time better than watching a good flick on the train home from work.
"But with that Playstation brand name, people are going to be thinking of it as a video game system above all else"
Doubtful. Many early Japanese PS2 buyers bought it more for it being a cheap DVD player than a game system. Think how often your PS2 (if you have one) has been the DVD player to use when friends come over. Mine got quite a workout.
"It was saved by severe screw-ups by both Nintendo and Sega."
Actually, the Playstation never needed saving, as Sony recognized the first rule of getting console marketshare: get lots and lots of developers. They had a ton signed on before the system was even released, while Nintendo and Sega (as you rightfully put it) bullied 3rd parties in an effort to sell more of their own wares. If anything, it's Nintendo and Sega that need saving nowadays.
The same way Macromedia Flash made it feasible to create a whole new genre of cartoons (web-based). If you put easier tools in the hands of the artists, more (and sometimes better) art is created. You honestly think GTA3 would've been successful if they were still drawing out individual sprites using assembly, like they used to?
As I mentioned in another post, Sony is not competing with the DS. They're competing with just about every portable video player on the market (and the eventual iPod Video, whenever they decide to release one). The DS is a game player that's wireless. The PSP is a game player that's wireless, plays MP3s and plays movies (just pop a MPEG4 on a Memory Card). The only limitation to its success will be memory card storage costs. At $250, comparing the PSP to portable video players, with that quality a screen... it's a steal.
I don't think so at all. It's not just a game console: it's an MP3 and movie player (MPEG4s). Granted, the big limitation for awhile will be storage (memory sticks don't hold much), but you shouldn't be comparing it to Nintendo's machine. Personally, I'd compare it to any of the various video players out right now. For a screen like that, it's a steal.
Anandtech reported that some models came out with 5400 drives.
"I assumed that overclocking a slower chip to a faster speed would produce more heat than a chip designed to work at that speed."
It doesn't. Every batch of wafers is tested within certain tolerances.
* If they run fine all the time at 1.42 GHz, they're branded 1.42 and roll out the door.
* If they run unreliably at 1.42, but work fine at the lower speed, they get pushed out the door at that speed. "Unreliably" usually means "failed a test once out of several hundred runs".
* If a chip fails multiple times it's tossed.
All 3 chips are identical, it's just that the 1.42s are known to reliably run at that speed. If you're an overclocker, you take that 1 out of 500 runs error as a risk that's worth taking.