Being that the Radeon 64MB DDR card is only $200 while the GeForce 3 is $400 could have something to do with it. ATI is a good card for people who want a great card but don't want to spend too much money on it, GeForce 3 is for performance junkies (me) or rich people who want bragging rights (not me unfortunately). For the money ATI makes a fine product.
hmmm, first let me say I'm getting a GeForce three rather than an ATI Radeon for my new computer, so I'm not really biased.....ATI Radeon DDR 64MB, $200........Geforce 3 DDR 64MB, $400........light-speed memory architecture, priceless. ATI isn't over-priced, they are very reasonably priced, if I wasn't a total performance junky I'd be getting a Radeon instead of a GeForce 3 because the Geforce 3 is definately overpriced.
Ok from what I understand about how processors work (very little) generally the more transistors the faster the chip is (I think). So what would happen if they doubled the size of the chip, and thus doubled the amount of the transistors, rather than attempting to fit more in a smaller space, would the new chip run faster? I know this isn't an extremely desirable solution, I'm just curious.
There is a big enough market because a large percentage of gamers will buy at least 2 probably all 3 systems, thats why the companies stagger their releases, if all three were released at the same time then one would flop because gamers would buy one first and wait to buy the other.
If the last system you bought was an SNES I fell sorry for you (unless your not a gamer or you don't use emulators), you missed Goldeneye, Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, Blast corps, Metal Gear Solid, FF7, FF8, FF9, Chrono Cross, driver....etc.(yest some where released for PC but many were not). If you are a gamer I would reccomend you buy an N64 or PS1 now that they are cheap and experience the great games you haven't played yet, by the time your done PS2 and GameCube will be really cheap and you can buy them (of course you'll always be one system behind...but a few hundred $ ahead). Or an even better alternitive, get an emulator and play whatever you want on your computer.
Remember just because a computer can do evrything a game system can doesn't mean the games you want will be ported.
Ha!! We dreamed of sticks. Us one-celled organisms had to try and arrange our organelles into a letter than shuffle into place next to 5 or 6 others just to spell one word, while being buffeted by large waves. After three hours or so our single-cell woud become unstable from such forced manipulation and eject it's nucleus through the cell-membrane, damn that hurt. We worked millions of years to evlove into you panzies so that YOU could write with sticks, except for te few of us who evolved into Mastadons.....those unlucky organisms had words written on them with a burnt stick!!!!
Actually, I don't think they can. Microsoft's exclusive agreements with OEMs regarding the distribution of IE is one of the things that got them into trouble
Well....yes, but Microsoft wasn't paying the OEM to make IE the only browser (The only option a company with no ties to the OS, like AOL, would have), instead they used their power as the owner of the OS to say "IE will be the ONLY browser to come intalled on your machines or you can't pre-install windows". If MS uses methods that any other company with no connections to the OS can use to secure exclusive desktop rights, then they are not acting as a monopoly, likewise if IE was made by company X and company X payed MS to make IE the only browser allowed on the windows desktop then that would be fine because campany Y could pay MS more than company X thus taking away the exclusive rights of company X. Since MS owns the OS, the browser, and the ISP, it is illegal for them to use any one of those areas to unfairly aid the other, in this case they are using their ownership of windows to aid their OS.
Microsoft's not allowing AOL exclusive desktop space also has another effect. It means that other ISPs that don't have AOL's heap of cash will be more likely able to get their icons on the desktop.
Not necessarily, lets say local ISP A wants local OEM B to put their icon on the desktop. Local OEM looks at their current setup and says hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon...."sure!", yay local company A reaches more users....but what if local OEM B said...hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon, I NEED TO HAVE AN MSN icon, "sorry I don't want to put too many icons on my desktop, its too cluttered"....local ISP A fails.
I agree AOL shouln't be able to have exclusive contracts because it's not good for the consumer, but the only fair way for MS to combat this is to say "You must have at least 2 seperate ISPs or none at all". This way they are not using their monopoly powers to aid their ISP, they are using their power over their OS to help the consumer, which is not a monopoly action.
In short choice is good, but the way MS is doing it is wrong and may harm the consumer.
but their not playing fairly if they use their monopoly to force OEMs to level the playing field, are they? The AOL deals are ot anti-competitive, simply because the OEM has a choice to accept the contract or not except it. Other companies (including Microsoft) can also pay for exclusive rights to an OEMs desktop configuration. What Microsoft is doing is using their monopoly power to say, AOL can pay the OEM for desktop priveledges.....but our service must get free advertising right next to it. This is anti-competitive because AOL must spend money to get on the desktop while MSN gets on for free just because MS says so, this gives them an advantage and seriously hurts AOL because no matter how much they spend on advertising per OEM, MSN wll always get a free ride.
Slashdot Mirror
Being that the Radeon 64MB DDR card is only $200 while the GeForce 3 is $400 could have something to do with it. ATI is a good card for people who want a great card but don't want to spend too much money on it, GeForce 3 is for performance junkies (me) or rich people who want bragging rights (not me unfortunately). For the money ATI makes a fine product.
:)
But then again my next card will be a GeForce 3
hmmm, first let me say I'm getting a GeForce three rather than an ATI Radeon for my new computer, so I'm not really biased.....ATI Radeon DDR 64MB, $200........Geforce 3 DDR 64MB, $400........light-speed memory architecture, priceless. ATI isn't over-priced, they are very reasonably priced, if I wasn't a total performance junky I'd be getting a Radeon instead of a GeForce 3 because the Geforce 3 is definately overpriced.
Ok from what I understand about how processors work (very little) generally the more transistors the faster the chip is (I think). So what would happen if they doubled the size of the chip, and thus doubled the amount of the transistors, rather than attempting to fit more in a smaller space, would the new chip run faster? I know this isn't an extremely desirable solution, I'm just curious.
There is a big enough market because a large percentage of gamers will buy at least 2 probably all 3 systems, thats why the companies stagger their releases, if all three were released at the same time then one would flop because gamers would buy one first and wait to buy the other.
If the last system you bought was an SNES I fell sorry for you (unless your not a gamer or you don't use emulators), you missed Goldeneye, Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Perfect Dark, Blast corps, Metal Gear Solid, FF7, FF8, FF9, Chrono Cross, driver....etc.(yest some where released for PC but many were not). If you are a gamer I would reccomend you buy an N64 or PS1 now that they are cheap and experience the great games you haven't played yet, by the time your done PS2 and GameCube will be really cheap and you can buy them (of course you'll always be one system behind...but a few hundred $ ahead). Or an even better alternitive, get an emulator and play whatever you want on your computer.
Remember just because a computer can do evrything a game system can doesn't mean the games you want will be ported.
Ha!! We dreamed of sticks. Us one-celled organisms had to try and arrange our organelles into a letter than shuffle into place next to 5 or 6 others just to spell one word, while being buffeted by large waves. After three hours or so our single-cell woud become unstable from such forced manipulation and eject it's nucleus through the cell-membrane, damn that hurt. We worked millions of years to evlove into you panzies so that YOU could write with sticks, except for te few of us who evolved into Mastadons.....those unlucky organisms had words written on them with a burnt stick!!!!
some good points, some innacurate ones.
Actually, I don't think they can. Microsoft's exclusive agreements with OEMs regarding the distribution of IE is one of the things that got them into trouble
Well....yes, but Microsoft wasn't paying the OEM to make IE the only browser (The only option a company with no ties to the OS, like AOL, would have), instead they used their power as the owner of the OS to say "IE will be the ONLY browser to come intalled on your machines or you can't pre-install windows". If MS uses methods that any other company with no connections to the OS can use to secure exclusive desktop rights, then they are not acting as a monopoly, likewise if IE was made by company X and company X payed MS to make IE the only browser allowed on the windows desktop then that would be fine because campany Y could pay MS more than company X thus taking away the exclusive rights of company X. Since MS owns the OS, the browser, and the ISP, it is illegal for them to use any one of those areas to unfairly aid the other, in this case they are using their ownership of windows to aid their OS.
Microsoft's not allowing AOL exclusive desktop space also has another effect. It means that other ISPs that don't have AOL's heap of cash will be more likely able to get their icons on the desktop.
Not necessarily, lets say local ISP A wants local OEM B to put their icon on the desktop. Local OEM looks at their current setup and says hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon...."sure!", yay local company A reaches more users....but what if local OEM B said...hmmmm, I've got an AOL icon, a compu-serve icon, and a prodigy icon, I NEED TO HAVE AN MSN icon, "sorry I don't want to put too many icons on my desktop, its too cluttered"....local ISP A fails.
I agree AOL shouln't be able to have exclusive contracts because it's not good for the consumer, but the only fair way for MS to combat this is to say "You must have at least 2 seperate ISPs or none at all". This way they are not using their monopoly powers to aid their ISP, they are using their power over their OS to help the consumer, which is not a monopoly action.
In short choice is good, but the way MS is doing it is wrong and may harm the consumer.
but their not playing fairly if they use their monopoly to force OEMs to level the playing field, are they? The AOL deals are ot anti-competitive, simply because the OEM has a choice to accept the contract or not except it. Other companies (including Microsoft) can also pay for exclusive rights to an OEMs desktop configuration. What Microsoft is doing is using their monopoly power to say, AOL can pay the OEM for desktop priveledges.....but our service must get free advertising right next to it. This is anti-competitive because AOL must spend money to get on the desktop while MSN gets on for free just because MS says so, this gives them an advantage and seriously hurts AOL because no matter how much they spend on advertising per OEM, MSN wll always get a free ride.