There's a problem there. The story seems to say that the projectors used are regular, off the shelf products. In that case the likely resolution each would have would be 1024x768, or even as low as 800x600. The 1920x1024 that you are quoting is an extremely high resolution for the average projector.
They also state that it has "higher resolution than a TV". That merely means that the image, as a whole, is at least 800x600. That's not very high res. Also, the pictures they display are reminiscent of a projector I used at 1024x768 to create an 11 foot diagonal screen, so it could be made up of 4 800x600 displays rather easily and still have good resolution.
It's more like the average slashdotter doesn't have the games topics on the front page. I know I had to specially enable it for me. And I also know most people are too lazy or don't care enough to do this.
Very seldom does any site do midrange hardware benches, and almost never do they do low end benches. So, when I'm trying to get a new comp together for my brother for a certain level of game and certain programs, I'm flying blind when it goes to budget items. Is the ATI card that is $5 less than the nVidia card that much worse? could it possibly be better for the games he plays or the apps he uses?
I know, low end people don't really need benchmarks, but it would be nice once in a while.
I would be surprised if that video card would give you a playable experience with Doom 3. I would recommend a GeForce 4 Ti or FX above 5200. On the ATI side you can get a 9500 Pro or above. Now those are recommendations, but relatively good recommendations from someone who has had experience with "minimum requirements" not being enough to even play the game.
Have you ever actually used a computer configured in this manner? I have used one or 2, and IIRC, they did *not* racognize the HT part of the processor.
umm, so are you agreeing with the parent post that obscurity isn't a bad thing as long as it's not the only form of security? or are you saying something different? I'm not sure I get it...
I will never buy an iPod until I can use some interface other than iTunes to interface with it. Now, I've never seen how an iPod interfaces and I've heard you can just load stuff on it like a hard drive, but it's never made clear if they are the same thing.
I still hate iTunes and if I were to get an iPod I'd need assurance that I would never *need* to load iTunes on my computer. I might try it again to see if I like it any better, but I don't want to be forced. I don't see why every MP3 player forceds you to use their jukebox software, since I hate jukebox software. I had an original Rio 32 MB, and I used a third-party app because it was a simpler, non-jukebox interface.
Isn't all quality percieved? If you say there is no difference between a FLAC track and an iTunes track, but I disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you I'm right. But you seem to want to try to convince me *you* are right.
Except, that by shopping around I can find a good amount of the CDs I like at $8-12 at even Sam Goody when they have sales. I don't buy any CD at more than about $12, and I have no lack of good music.
You know, ther *is* a chance that they will make the traditional FF games of the GC. There is actually one in the works at the moment if you believe Square-Enix. And yes, Square had an exclusive agreement with Sony, but IIRC it has expired.
Since Sony doesn't own as much as you seem to think, and since Square-Enix is a third-party game maker, I think that Kameo is quite a bit more impossible than a traditional FF on the Cube.
I never thought it was rhetorical. I was just thinking you were being quite arrogant because the way you phrased it made it sound like the only choice is a player compatible with Mac.
I'm not saying you personally are arrogant; your post merely seemed so. I was just trying to get the point across that, just because the iPod is just about perfect for you doesn't mean it's anywhere near perfect for others.
The only thing I really wish Nintendo would get, which is of course, not their fault, is the new Final Fantasy games. And I don't mean pseudo RPGs like Crystal Chronicles. I want the real Final Fantasy RPGs on Gamecube.
There are people who are fine with the stock stereos in their cars. Later model cars, in general, unless they are pieces of shit, will have relatively good stereos. It's not the more power I'm looking for when I buy a stereo (40 watts a channel is more than enough to kill things acoustically in many cars) it's the features. While I probably wouldn't buy this because I am morally against paying $500 for a portable music player, I may buy another head unit with a similar design that's a little more universal (if that's possible).
I already have more power in my stereo than my speakers can put out without making my ears just about bleed. If you have good speakers, they won't use anywhere near the full 40 watts per channel most stereos nowadays have (if not more than 40...). Now, if you have an external speaker box for God knows what reason you may use that power, or if you use speakers that are 5 times the size/power of the stock ones with your car (again for God knows what reason) then you may need more power. But then you'd probably get some sort of amplifier anyways.
I got way off track, and to sum it all up, power isn't what it's all about with car stereos.
I like both the "shuffle and go" and the "play through the album" equally, It's mainly the current mood I am in where it matters to me, as well as what I am doing. If I'm on a short ride to work, I usually hit shuffle as I can't get a feel for an album that quickly (10-15 mins). But longer rides I'll generally pick an album to stick with. Unless I decide to go with a bunch of techno tunes where the ideas don't tie into each other and the albums don't matter. Don't try this with most Orbital albums, by the way, you'll get confused.
Basically, I'm just saying there are times when each is appropriate, but I rarely make playlists that don't follow an album's order, or include dongs form another album, unless there's a definite reason to. And even then I'm usually too lazy to put that much thought into it.
I personally don't like iTunes. I don't buy music off the internet because I can usually find the CDs I want for under $10 each, which is less than I would pay iTunes for a copy tied to one computer, which I cannot use on an alternate OS (Linux) without hacks, which will not play in my current player (CD-MP3 player), and I don't feel like "wasting" (quotes because I feel it's wasted, to me) $500 or so on a product that will barely hold all my MP3 files. And before you ask, no, they are not even largely "illegal" files.
That said, I have to agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the head unit. I think it would be safer to have the info on the head unit, as a portable player can shift around and you don't know exactly where to look at it for 2 seconds as you make sure of what the current song is titled, etc. Plus, I like the UI, but only to a point. The same with anything Apple. The only thing Apple makes that I like without a single caveat is their large widescreen LCD displays. They are the most beautiful things I have ever imagined.
I'm not poor, though I'm not rich. I just think it's a waste of money to buy an iPod. I only paid $600 for my current laptop because it's fast enough for what I do with it (music and coding mainly, sometimes a game). Plus I found that, except for the modem, it is compatible with Linux. Oh, and it has 2 buttons for the trackpad which is vital to how I use a computer. You can have your Apple products, but they're not for me. If the iPod was more reasonably priced (to me at least), I would buy one or two. But currently I can't justify it to myself.
How about the other 95%(+) home users that use Windows, Linux, or osme other x86 computer type? The iPod may be the best player for you but it's not the best for me, or for many other people.
Slashdot Mirror
What chick with the hammer? I think I missed something in the article or I missed the joke....
There's a problem there. The story seems to say that the projectors used are regular, off the shelf products. In that case the likely resolution each would have would be 1024x768, or even as low as 800x600. The 1920x1024 that you are quoting is an extremely high resolution for the average projector.
They also state that it has "higher resolution than a TV". That merely means that the image, as a whole, is at least 800x600. That's not very high res. Also, the pictures they display are reminiscent of a projector I used at 1024x768 to create an 11 foot diagonal screen, so it could be made up of 4 800x600 displays rather easily and still have good resolution.
I'll provide coordinates with one condition:
You let me help bomb the shit out of the patent office, as well as select other governmental offices (Dept of Homeland Security anyone?)
It's more like the average slashdotter doesn't have the games topics on the front page. I know I had to specially enable it for me. And I also know most people are too lazy or don't care enough to do this.
Very seldom does any site do midrange hardware benches, and almost never do they do low end benches. So, when I'm trying to get a new comp together for my brother for a certain level of game and certain programs, I'm flying blind when it goes to budget items. Is the ATI card that is $5 less than the nVidia card that much worse? could it possibly be better for the games he plays or the apps he uses?
I know, low end people don't really need benchmarks, but it would be nice once in a while.
I would be surprised if that video card would give you a playable experience with Doom 3. I would recommend a GeForce 4 Ti or FX above 5200. On the ATI side you can get a 9500 Pro or above. Now those are recommendations, but relatively good recommendations from someone who has had experience with "minimum requirements" not being enough to even play the game.
the demo won't be out til like a week after the game is out. They're banking on people buying it without the game demo I guess...
Have you ever actually used a computer configured in this manner? I have used one or 2, and IIRC, they did *not* racognize the HT part of the processor.
umm, so are you agreeing with the parent post that obscurity isn't a bad thing as long as it's not the only form of security? or are you saying something different? I'm not sure I get it...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me that was only a joke. I got a headache just reading that...
I will never buy an iPod until I can use some interface other than iTunes to interface with it. Now, I've never seen how an iPod interfaces and I've heard you can just load stuff on it like a hard drive, but it's never made clear if they are the same thing.
I still hate iTunes and if I were to get an iPod I'd need assurance that I would never *need* to load iTunes on my computer. I might try it again to see if I like it any better, but I don't want to be forced. I don't see why every MP3 player forceds you to use their jukebox software, since I hate jukebox software. I had an original Rio 32 MB, and I used a third-party app because it was a simpler, non-jukebox interface.
Isn't all quality percieved? If you say there is no difference between a FLAC track and an iTunes track, but I disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you I'm right. But you seem to want to try to convince me *you* are right.
I don't see why we can't all just get along.
That makes it sound like the majority of consumers are idiots, when you can get many of those CDs at cheaper prices at other retail outlets.
Except, that by shopping around I can find a good amount of the CDs I like at $8-12 at even Sam Goody when they have sales. I don't buy any CD at more than about $12, and I have no lack of good music.
Wow, someone who actually realizes that the gigantic sub doesn't increase the quality of the sound? I must have your autograph, sir.
That is exactly why I won't put a sub in my car. I'd rather listen to better sounding music than rattle my car apart.
You know, ther *is* a chance that they will make the traditional FF games of the GC. There is actually one in the works at the moment if you believe Square-Enix. And yes, Square had an exclusive agreement with Sony, but IIRC it has expired.
Since Sony doesn't own as much as you seem to think, and since Square-Enix is a third-party game maker, I think that Kameo is quite a bit more impossible than a traditional FF on the Cube.
I never thought it was rhetorical. I was just thinking you were being quite arrogant because the way you phrased it made it sound like the only choice is a player compatible with Mac.
I'm not saying you personally are arrogant; your post merely seemed so. I was just trying to get the point across that, just because the iPod is just about perfect for you doesn't mean it's anywhere near perfect for others.
That would be just dandy, except he's looking fo uselesslib, not foo. I mean, duh.
Same difference in the eyes of the law.... and that is what they are talking about here.
The only thing I really wish Nintendo would get, which is of course, not their fault, is the new Final Fantasy games. And I don't mean pseudo RPGs like Crystal Chronicles. I want the real Final Fantasy RPGs on Gamecube.
There are people who are fine with the stock stereos in their cars. Later model cars, in general, unless they are pieces of shit, will have relatively good stereos. It's not the more power I'm looking for when I buy a stereo (40 watts a channel is more than enough to kill things acoustically in many cars) it's the features. While I probably wouldn't buy this because I am morally against paying $500 for a portable music player, I may buy another head unit with a similar design that's a little more universal (if that's possible).
I already have more power in my stereo than my speakers can put out without making my ears just about bleed. If you have good speakers, they won't use anywhere near the full 40 watts per channel most stereos nowadays have (if not more than 40...). Now, if you have an external speaker box for God knows what reason you may use that power, or if you use speakers that are 5 times the size/power of the stock ones with your car (again for God knows what reason) then you may need more power. But then you'd probably get some sort of amplifier anyways.
I got way off track, and to sum it all up, power isn't what it's all about with car stereos.
I like both the "shuffle and go" and the "play through the album" equally, It's mainly the current mood I am in where it matters to me, as well as what I am doing. If I'm on a short ride to work, I usually hit shuffle as I can't get a feel for an album that quickly (10-15 mins). But longer rides I'll generally pick an album to stick with. Unless I decide to go with a bunch of techno tunes where the ideas don't tie into each other and the albums don't matter. Don't try this with most Orbital albums, by the way, you'll get confused.
Basically, I'm just saying there are times when each is appropriate, but I rarely make playlists that don't follow an album's order, or include dongs form another album, unless there's a definite reason to. And even then I'm usually too lazy to put that much thought into it.
I personally don't like iTunes. I don't buy music off the internet because I can usually find the CDs I want for under $10 each, which is less than I would pay iTunes for a copy tied to one computer, which I cannot use on an alternate OS (Linux) without hacks, which will not play in my current player (CD-MP3 player), and I don't feel like "wasting" (quotes because I feel it's wasted, to me) $500 or so on a product that will barely hold all my MP3 files. And before you ask, no, they are not even largely "illegal" files.
That said, I have to agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the head unit. I think it would be safer to have the info on the head unit, as a portable player can shift around and you don't know exactly where to look at it for 2 seconds as you make sure of what the current song is titled, etc. Plus, I like the UI, but only to a point. The same with anything Apple. The only thing Apple makes that I like without a single caveat is their large widescreen LCD displays. They are the most beautiful things I have ever imagined.
I'm not poor, though I'm not rich. I just think it's a waste of money to buy an iPod. I only paid $600 for my current laptop because it's fast enough for what I do with it (music and coding mainly, sometimes a game). Plus I found that, except for the modem, it is compatible with Linux. Oh, and it has 2 buttons for the trackpad which is vital to how I use a computer. You can have your Apple products, but they're not for me. If the iPod was more reasonably priced (to me at least), I would buy one or two. But currently I can't justify it to myself.
How about the other 95%(+) home users that use Windows, Linux, or osme other x86 computer type? The iPod may be the best player for you but it's not the best for me, or for many other people.
What's so bad about DOS? Wasn't that Microsoft's glory days when things often worked as they should?
Oh, you said DoS. I'm sorry.....