The tool has nothing to do with whether your fundamental understanding of application architecture is strong or not. What a tool like VStudio or QT Designer DOES do is let people who have no knowledge build applications. That doesn't make VStudio rot your brain. Your brain was either rotted before or not. Most of the worst code I've seen during my career was entered via vi and/or emacs. That doesn't mean vi doesn't rock or that emacs leads to brain rot now, does it?
Actually, the EffectEdit sample runs just fine on the HAL if you're HAL can support the features it requires (it runs on HAL just fine on my nVidia FX3000.)
As for pixomatic, they have their own pixel shader implementation which you can use in conjunction with the DX9 wrapper or extend the wrapper. They certainly don't support HLSL (yet.)
Hopefully both products will have HLSL support soon, we'll see.
Personally I'd like to see the performance comparison between an integrated DX8 grahpics chipset against SwiftShader. People who know 3D graphics wouldn't be dissuaded from SwiftShader by seeing it lose (if it did.)
Oh, I presume that the demos are very much faster than 50x the REF, but again people should not be saying "the only other alternative for Direct3D 8/9 emulation" because first, you are not allowed to redistribute the reference rasterizer with a product because it is part of the DirectX SDK not the redistributables package for DX8 or DX9, second, there IS another DirectX 9 compatible API for software rendering and it is fantastically fast and feature rich, it's called Pixomatic:
...saying that it performs up to 50 times better than the Microsoft Reference Rasterizer you're actually calling it slooooow. The REF driver exists with absolutely ZERO optimizations explicitly for the purpose of discerning if a problem is in your code or is in the video card's device driver. Maybe they're confused about the old RAMP and RGB devices you could use to render in software. 50 times faster than REF is pathetic to be honest.
... LOL. Comparing malloc to a memory manager is an early indicator of bias which I wouldn't point out if they had bothered to do so themselves (because it is valid to point out that C++ people tend to marginalize Java based upon performance out of hand and that's wrong.)
But, to compare oranges to oranges, my texture resource manager (written in C++) returns batches of pre-allocated memory (like the Java system mentioned in the article) in less than 6 machine instructions.
...at implementing. His AI is garbarge. Quite literally it is as poor as the Alice 'AI' project. A giant switch and wildcard statement. He rides on the coattails of real thinkers. Yes, I dislike him, precisely for the reasons above. Tons of PR, lots of press releases, ZERO substance. Of course, I'm all for a new an improved future; however, people will still be around to mess it up.;)
To be honest, I think that Symantec is just being objective about how it measures how secure a browser is.
Now, if somebody reads about that and figures "Well, that makes IE better than Mozilla" there are of course TONS of reasons why this is not true; however, this doesn't make Symantec guilty of anything.
Some of the logic you use is also applicable in reverse, because many more people use and rely on IE than a Mozilla based browser, doesn't that help discover vulnerabilities in IE?;)
In any case, I think you're being a bit rash about the report itself while proffering good reasoning for why this doesn't make Mozilla 'bad.'
Certainly seems cool... I think that if it could not only deform (in the normal MAW sense) but change area and volume then you'd have the best of both worlds. Imagine a flaplike shape bulging from the back of the wing surface, lol.
Well, to get technical, all wings change shape in flight. The point of the MAW, of course, is that it was designed as a single contiguous surface and as you stated and extreme example of surface contortion.
Nope, the actual wing itself can flatten, bend, warp according to the current flight profile (high angle of attack, high speed, low speed, a need for excessive lift, et cetera...)
I don't know if I can agree with that. I am aware of BERP type rotors which have an unusual shape to them, but the rotor itself doesn't change shape. The angles the rotors are held are changes, but the rotor shape is static unless I'm mistaken.
Aaah, my mistake. When SLI was first introduced, hardware sites were saying that this was the case. I'm glad to see that it has been changed to a profile system. Profiles look a little hairy but it appears there are some free apps/utilities that will help you out for nVidias.
nVidia's solution requires changes to your game's codebase and build in order to function. AFAIK, ATI's solution will work on ANY game old or new with zero changes. That's a huge advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
"byte b = -1;
...surprised you?
char c = (char)b;
so c=-1, right? Wrong."
The tool has nothing to do with whether your fundamental understanding of application architecture is strong or not. What a tool like VStudio or QT Designer DOES do is let people who have no knowledge build applications. That doesn't make VStudio rot your brain. Your brain was either rotted before or not. Most of the worst code I've seen during my career was entered via vi and/or emacs. That doesn't mean vi doesn't rock or that emacs leads to brain rot now, does it?
Actually, the EffectEdit sample runs just fine on the HAL if you're HAL can support the features it requires (it runs on HAL just fine on my nVidia FX3000.)
As for pixomatic, they have their own pixel shader implementation which you can use in conjunction with the DX9 wrapper or extend the wrapper. They certainly don't support HLSL (yet.)
Hopefully both products will have HLSL support soon, we'll see.
Personally I'd like to see the performance comparison between an integrated DX8 grahpics chipset against SwiftShader. People who know 3D graphics wouldn't be dissuaded from SwiftShader by seeing it lose (if it did.)
Oh, I presume that the demos are very much faster than 50x the REF, but again people should not be saying "the only other alternative for Direct3D 8/9 emulation" because first, you are not allowed to redistribute the reference rasterizer with a product because it is part of the DirectX SDK not the redistributables package for DX8 or DX9, second, there IS another DirectX 9 compatible API for software rendering and it is fantastically fast and feature rich, it's called Pixomatic:
http://www.radgametools.com/#Pixomatic
...saying that it performs up to 50 times better than the Microsoft Reference Rasterizer you're actually calling it slooooow. The REF driver exists with absolutely ZERO optimizations explicitly for the purpose of discerning if a problem is in your code or is in the video card's device driver. Maybe they're confused about the old RAMP and RGB devices you could use to render in software. 50 times faster than REF is pathetic to be honest.
... LOL. Comparing malloc to a memory manager is an early indicator of bias which I wouldn't point out if they had bothered to do so themselves (because it is valid to point out that C++ people tend to marginalize Java based upon performance out of hand and that's wrong.)
But, to compare oranges to oranges, my texture resource manager (written in C++) returns batches of pre-allocated memory (like the Java system mentioned in the article) in less than 6 machine instructions.
He gud @ pustulating two.
"is great AT postulating", sorry. That's why there's a 'preview' button moron...
...at implementing. His AI is garbarge. Quite literally it is as poor as the Alice 'AI' project. A giant switch and wildcard statement. He rides on the coattails of real thinkers. Yes, I dislike him, precisely for the reasons above. Tons of PR, lots of press releases, ZERO substance. Of course, I'm all for a new an improved future; however, people will still be around to mess it up. ;)
To be honest, I think that Symantec is just being objective about how it measures how secure a browser is.
;)
Now, if somebody reads about that and figures "Well, that makes IE better than Mozilla" there are of course TONS of reasons why this is not true; however, this doesn't make Symantec guilty of anything.
Some of the logic you use is also applicable in reverse, because many more people use and rely on IE than a Mozilla based browser, doesn't that help discover vulnerabilities in IE?
In any case, I think you're being a bit rash about the report itself while proffering good reasoning for why this doesn't make Mozilla 'bad.'
;).
Kind of silly not to just use Firefox, eh?
"This book isn't for closed-minded folks who think the waterfall method and a preponderance of documentation and process control are the bee's knees."
Certainly seems cool... I think that if it could not only deform (in the normal MAW sense) but change area and volume then you'd have the best of both worlds. Imagine a flaplike shape bulging from the back of the wing surface, lol.
If you're not try to grab along the long axis of the wing, yes, it theoretically could ;).
Well, to get technical, all wings change shape in flight. The point of the MAW, of course, is that it was designed as a single contiguous surface and as you stated and extreme example of surface contortion.
Sorry, should have previewed that. Space was removed.
/****\
Heavy lift example
____
Nope, the actual wing itself can flatten, bend, warp according to the current flight profile (high angle of attack, high speed, low speed, a need for excessive lift, et cetera...)
Can go from being flat like:
------
To a heavy lift example:
____
/ \
I don't know if I can agree with that. I am aware of BERP type rotors which have an unusual shape to them, but the rotor itself doesn't change shape. The angles the rotors are held are changes, but the rotor shape is static unless I'm mistaken.
True, but that was just the tips of the wings wasn't it?
MAW (Mission Adaptive Wing) designs have been tested since the sixties at least (probably earlier.) Still cool though.
"and the need to interoperate more smoothly with other departments running Windows."
Aka, dominance brings it own appeal.
Sorry, it will always mean 'shorcut due to lazy coders' to me.
The term comes from the idea that instead of handling it properly, it just gets hacked up instead of done properly.
Certainly not for an expert software engineer or developer. Hack == crap.
Aaah, my mistake. When SLI was first introduced, hardware sites were saying that this was the case. I'm glad to see that it has been changed to a profile system. Profiles look a little hairy but it appears there are some free apps/utilities that will help you out for nVidias.
My apologies to those who read my comments.
nVidia's solution requires changes to your game's codebase and build in order to function. AFAIK, ATI's solution will work on ANY game old or new with zero changes. That's a huge advantage.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...