The architecture is what matters. Not the amount of GPUs.
Not to mention that the V5 6000 had 4 VSA-100 processers on it. Not to mention that at all.
Architecture is irrelevant; the V5 6000 was/is a great card. what brought it down was the fact that it was hell to produce and took too long to come out (never did, in fact - fault of management and such). In all, the V5 6000 could do mad frame rates and mad anti-aliasing, but in terms of features that everyone could take advantage of easily in games, forget it. GLIDE was proprietary; remember sighing with dismay at Unreal when you saw it was GLIDE, or software, and you were left hanging with your DirectX/OpenGL card? GLIDE was great architecture too, but god-damn if developers were gonna code for just GLIDE, for the whole single manufacturer.
Yeah, the V5 6000 was a great card, wonderful architecture. Too bad it would have cost so damn much to produce, sell, PLUS it didn't do anything anyone wanted.
i have to wonder about population growth in general. we all know that the larger things get, the harder they are to handle. for instance, roads. do we have enough roads? yes. are the roads tough to drive on in rush hour? yes. can roads handle MORE people? yes.
would that be GOOD?.... no. it would suck.
i don't see a big problem with the way the earth changes; i believe people think they have a larger effect on their environment than we really do. however, when it comes to how people affect other people and the society we make for ourselves, i see a large problem - too many people make SOCIETIES crummy to live in. that's something to wonder about.
for brightening up my sunday afternoon with this review (albeit on an old movie), i forgive you for all your previous rants against MS with your own brand of FUD.
with lines like "Matthew Mcwhothehellcanspellhiisname", i could have sworn i was reading a SomethingAwful movie review.
Gates: takes money, pockets plenty but remains one of the world's biggest philantropists (if not THE biggest philantropist), donating to various worthwhile charities, programs and funds in the fields of science, medicine, education, politics, the environment, [etc] that actually help the less fortunate & ill the world over.
Draeker: takes money, pockets plenty, screws over everyone else. BUT he made games available for linux.
I guess that doesn't filter into the Gates immorality scale, does it?
I think you missed the point. I'm not saying that working for Microsoft would be bad at all - except for the fact that your morals have to be slightly skewed to be comfortable with such employment.
I guess your sense of reality had to be slightly skewed if you were working at Loki. Unpaid for a year, in the name of a greater cause?
Speaking of morals: how about Mr. Draeker himself? Any personal attacks you'd dare levy against him & his associates?
and that's how it is. as surely as the price of liberty & freedom is vigilance, the price of material (content, bandwidth) is money.
it's unfortunate when people are spoiled by getting something for free that someone else puts time, effort, and captial into. part of being human is the development of expectations (as a child, i expect to be clothed & fed, as an adult i expect to hold a job and have a car and a home), but sometimes feeding those expectations can be more costly than simply not putting those expectations forth in the first place. "freedom" will always cost something, no matter how miniscule.
we have to develop reasonable and deliverable expectations - otherwise, we risk not only being spoiled ourselves, but risk spoiling "it" for everyone else.
i'll be supporting/. when it goes subscription, because i don't believe in the expectation that information should be absolutely free. it takes effort to make information free, something the editors of/. do their best to provide.
i expect to work for and support the things that matter to me, and i expect that what i choose to work for and support is worthwhile. i choose not to be a leech, a scab.
"UNIX is simple. It just takes a genious to realize its simplicity."
UNIX, as it is, was meant for people who know what they're doing. bringing it to the masses is a task that wasn't meant to be done, although linux took a good shot at it by making a UNIX that's free for millions of other brainiacs.
OSX also took a good shot at it, and it's worked out famously well.
what makes them work so well?
they have a TARGET AUDIENCE, and a CONSOLIDATED EFFORT TO BRING THEM WHAT THEY WANT.
linux, UNIX, OSX, FreeBSD work they way they were designed, and applications et al already run on them. they don't NEED to be standardized further - they just need applications to keep sustaining the target audience. and in that effect, they're all winners.
it's all fine & nice that we can circumvent natural selection in another way. rah rah, hooray humanity, look what we can do, we're getting better.....
this feat of technology circumvents natural selection. i believe that if people couldn't have kids because of some defect/inability, then that's nature's way of saying "THIS GENEPOOL STOPS HERE. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH."
why do we do these things? the goodness of our dumb old hearts... is exactly that. good, but dumb.
i think linux *HAS* found it's niche. it's a tinkertoy that can work QUITE beautifully for those who are inclined to use it, for whatever reason.
linux has been from the start, and will always be: an end in itself. it CAN be useful to people, when configured right, but the community insists on putting linux where it doesn't belong.
linux belongs only with those who actually want to tinker with it - that's where it's succeeded, and that's where i believe it's going to stay. it's an ongoing, interesting experiment, meant to show people not that it's better than brand X's OS, but that they can be self reliant if they have the skill to do so.
windows was an attempt to be useful to people on PC's to get work done, and it's done that. Mac OS was meant to work on Mac machines and make Macs useful, and it's done that. Unix & BSD were meant to provide a rock-solid operating system for scientists to do work on and run server tasks, and they've succeeded quite well in that.
linux was developed purely out of ego. like the greek myth about the man who sculpted a woman out of clay because real women weren't perfect enough.
think: hardware acceleration.
graphics processing took the road it did when someone got the great idea to accelerate popular functions in the HARDWARE, instead of relying on software to carry out the functions.
your points, while valid in themselves, don't really address the fact that the name Lindows is (half-cleverly) an attempt to capitalize on the very popular and recognizable Windows trademark.
in the context of computers and brand names, "Windows" is known as "the Microsoft OS". you don't even have to say "Microsoft" - everyone knows what "Windows" is, from your secretary to your IT director. the issue isn't that Lindows does windows app emulation, or that it's "like" windows (which it's not) - the issue is the name they've branded their product with, and the confusion that could arrise from it.
imagine joe computer user (as opposed to joe guru) who's looking to buy a new computer, and is leafing through the local computer ads. he sees a small company advertising a computer for some good price. he looks for pre-installed software (since he doesn't want fool around with his new computer and "screw it up"), and sees it comes pre-installed with:
Lindows.
what's joe user gonna think?
Case 1) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with vmware or the like running linux on demand.
Case 2) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with a custom linux emulator that runs apps on demand, seamlessly.
Case 3) Lindows is Linux running VMware for a Windows desktop.
Case 4) Lindows is Linux running CodeWeaver's Wine to launch windows apps on demand.
Case 5) Lindows is Linux running a new windows emulator or API that we haven't previously heard of.
Case 6) Lindows is a new OS, that is both windows and linux and runs elf and exe executables natively.
Case 7) Lindows is a hoax.
or
Case 8) It's a typo, they MEANT Windows.
that's what i think the "Lindows" suit is all about, and i think it's a perfectly valid reason (to name one example situation) for MS to be concerned about.
-- this post was ended before the author said something to really encourage flames. --
ooh boy... the movie was GREAT, don't get me wrong, but even MORE footage to ogle... i dunno that i could sit still through that.
heck, even my friend was mentioning to me in the theatre as we were watching, "god, this is a LONG movie". it turned funny when the movie ended, and he whirled on me with a wild look in his eyes, exclaiming "THAT'S IT?".
the poor unwitting soul had no idea it was a trilogy.
one of the common mantras on/. is that security through obscurity is NOT security.
however, neither is encryption.
encryption and obscurity are MEASURES towards providing the illusion of security.
obscurity is a measure that says "as long as they don't sense this or think of it, we're ok."
encryption is a measure that says "as long as they don't crack this, we're ok."
neither is secure, but both together ARE decent measures, if you combine them right, kinda like front lines in a battle. have an invisibility shield (obscurity), but if that fails, have opaque defenses that are hard to break (encryption).
obscurity means you lose a level of trust with those inside the company - encryption means you lose a level of trust with the outside world.
I know I do. "Hackers" can sieze control if people connect to the Net. MS makes a free fix[1] available on their Web site. Like, through the Net. So eXPendable users are basically forced to play Russian Roulette when they get on-line.
Oh the fun you could have with BackOrificeXP right now... User tries to get patch, Evil haX0r-d00d shoots out a pop-up and mp3: a little Strauss music and a MsgBox reading, "I don't think I can let you do that, Dave."
i find that most slashdotters like to harp about MALICIOUS folks finding all the security flaws. what they fail to recognize is that there are GOOD guys also out there, helping find security flaws and bringing them to light. eeye.com are the good guys in this case, actively pursuing & finding security flaws and working WITH vendors to fix products.
open-source programmers the world over laugh at how hard it is for closed-sourcer's to fix their code, because 3rd parties can't examine it for bugs. however, in an instance like this, even though it is HARDER to find the bug, especially without the source code, the bug is still found and fixed, and agreeably handled. and no doubt that eeye has made a nice profitable business out of their security testing.
in retrospect, it smacks of plain un-willingness & hatred against MS when someone claims that bugs are harder to find in closed-source. it's harder, but it's UNWILLINGNESS to help that makes it IMPOSSIBLE.
the technology i was referring to was activex. nice idea, but bad security behind it, and way too tied down to backwards compatability.
another nice idea:.NET . time has yet to tell how well this will work in terms of security & how obsolete it'll become. however, it's the step up from activex most MS developers wanted.
his reply did NOT completely avoid the question. the concept he's trying to get across is that the technology they come out with is stuff that's first churning away internally, away from public eyes. this process of innovation takes several years before it comes to public light. by the time developers are told of what redmond is gonna roll out next, this (by now old) tech they've got in the works is already on the roadmap, and will most certainly be lagged compared with what's next on the table, as well as fall short of the development community's needs in some way.
you think that they snap their fingers one day with a new technology and ignore developers for a couple of months? no, they work hard for years, and aren't about to turn back on their roadmap after the hard work they've done.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the V5 6000 was a great card, wonderful architecture. Too bad it would have cost so damn much to produce, sell, PLUS it didn't do anything anyone wanted.
i have to wonder about population growth in general. we all know that the larger things get, the harder they are to handle. for instance, roads. do we have enough roads? yes. are the roads tough to drive on in rush hour? yes. can roads handle MORE people? yes.
.... no. it would suck.
would that be GOOD?
i don't see a big problem with the way the earth changes; i believe people think they have a larger effect on their environment than we really do. however, when it comes to how people affect other people and the society we make for ourselves, i see a large problem - too many people make SOCIETIES crummy to live in. that's something to wonder about.
it gets about 923749083274fps in quake III
for brightening up my sunday afternoon with this review (albeit on an old movie), i forgive you for all your previous rants against MS with your own brand of FUD.
with lines like "Matthew Mcwhothehellcanspellhiisname", i could have sworn i was reading a SomethingAwful movie review.
it's easier to find warez for the pc ;)
Just to nitpick...
Gates: takes money, pockets plenty but remains one of the world's biggest philantropists (if not THE biggest philantropist), donating to various worthwhile charities, programs and funds in the fields of science, medicine, education, politics, the environment, [etc] that actually help the less fortunate & ill the world over.
Draeker: takes money, pockets plenty, screws over everyone else. BUT he made games available for linux.
I guess that doesn't filter into the Gates immorality scale, does it?
Speaking of morals: how about Mr. Draeker himself? Any personal attacks you'd dare levy against him & his associates?
and that's how it is. as surely as the price of liberty & freedom is vigilance, the price of material (content, bandwidth) is money.
/. when it goes subscription, because i don't believe in the expectation that information should be absolutely free. it takes effort to make information free, something the editors of /. do their best to provide.
it's unfortunate when people are spoiled by getting something for free that someone else puts time, effort, and captial into. part of being human is the development of expectations (as a child, i expect to be clothed & fed, as an adult i expect to hold a job and have a car and a home), but sometimes feeding those expectations can be more costly than simply not putting those expectations forth in the first place. "freedom" will always cost something, no matter how miniscule.
we have to develop reasonable and deliverable expectations - otherwise, we risk not only being spoiled ourselves, but risk spoiling "it" for everyone else.
i'll be supporting
i expect to work for and support the things that matter to me, and i expect that what i choose to work for and support is worthwhile. i choose not to be a leech, a scab.
i think that's something we should all adopt.
wasn't it dennis ritchie who said:
"UNIX is simple. It just takes a genious to realize its simplicity."
UNIX, as it is, was meant for people who know what they're doing. bringing it to the masses is a task that wasn't meant to be done, although linux took a good shot at it by making a UNIX that's free for millions of other brainiacs.
OSX also took a good shot at it, and it's worked out famously well.
what makes them work so well?
they have a TARGET AUDIENCE, and a CONSOLIDATED EFFORT TO BRING THEM WHAT THEY WANT.
linux, UNIX, OSX, FreeBSD work they way they were designed, and applications et al already run on them. they don't NEED to be standardized further - they just need applications to keep sustaining the target audience. and in that effect, they're all winners.
i actually saw this movie being filmed outside my workplace in downtown toronto.
what a piece of shit.
this is the best post i've ever seen on /. thanks chrisd!
it's all fine & nice that we can circumvent natural selection in another way. rah rah, hooray humanity, look what we can do, we're getting better.....
this feat of technology circumvents natural selection. i believe that if people couldn't have kids because of some defect/inability, then that's nature's way of saying "THIS GENEPOOL STOPS HERE. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH."
why do we do these things? the goodness of our dumb old hearts... is exactly that. good, but dumb.
i think linux *HAS* found it's niche. it's a tinkertoy that can work QUITE beautifully for those who are inclined to use it, for whatever reason.
linux has been from the start, and will always be: an end in itself. it CAN be useful to people, when configured right, but the community insists on putting linux where it doesn't belong.
linux belongs only with those who actually want to tinker with it - that's where it's succeeded, and that's where i believe it's going to stay. it's an ongoing, interesting experiment, meant to show people not that it's better than brand X's OS, but that they can be self reliant if they have the skill to do so.
windows was an attempt to be useful to people on PC's to get work done, and it's done that. Mac OS was meant to work on Mac machines and make Macs useful, and it's done that. Unix & BSD were meant to provide a rock-solid operating system for scientists to do work on and run server tasks, and they've succeeded quite well in that.
linux was developed purely out of ego. like the greek myth about the man who sculpted a woman out of clay because real women weren't perfect enough.
keep chipping away, guys.
i was hoping you guys would have news about catching COUNTERSTRIKE cheaters, not COMPUTER SCIENCE cheaters.
*sigh*
no, no - we have the hudson river for THAT.
personally, i think it resembles a lamp. which is nice.
'cause when my friends come over and i need to look elite, i can just stick a lampshade over it.
think: hardware acceleration. graphics processing took the road it did when someone got the great idea to accelerate popular functions in the HARDWARE, instead of relying on software to carry out the functions.
your points, while valid in themselves, don't really address the fact that the name Lindows is (half-cleverly) an attempt to capitalize on the very popular and recognizable Windows trademark.
in the context of computers and brand names, "Windows" is known as "the Microsoft OS". you don't even have to say "Microsoft" - everyone knows what "Windows" is, from your secretary to your IT director. the issue isn't that Lindows does windows app emulation, or that it's "like" windows (which it's not) - the issue is the name they've branded their product with, and the confusion that could arrise from it.
imagine joe computer user (as opposed to joe guru) who's looking to buy a new computer, and is leafing through the local computer ads. he sees a small company advertising a computer for some good price. he looks for pre-installed software (since he doesn't want fool around with his new computer and "screw it up"), and sees it comes pre-installed with:
Lindows.
what's joe user gonna think?
Case 1) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with vmware or the like running linux on demand.
Case 2) Lindows is actually Windows2000,XP, etc with a custom linux emulator that runs apps on demand, seamlessly.
Case 3) Lindows is Linux running VMware for a Windows desktop.
Case 4) Lindows is Linux running CodeWeaver's Wine to launch windows apps on demand.
Case 5) Lindows is Linux running a new windows emulator or API that we haven't previously heard of.
Case 6) Lindows is a new OS, that is both windows and linux and runs elf and exe executables natively.
Case 7) Lindows is a hoax.
or
Case 8) It's a typo, they MEANT Windows.
that's what i think the "Lindows" suit is all about, and i think it's a perfectly valid reason (to name one example situation) for MS to be concerned about.
--
this post was ended before the author said something to really encourage flames.
--
ooh boy... the movie was GREAT, don't get me wrong, but even MORE footage to ogle... i dunno that i could sit still through that.
heck, even my friend was mentioning to me in the theatre as we were watching, "god, this is a LONG movie". it turned funny when the movie ended, and he whirled on me with a wild look in his eyes, exclaiming "THAT'S IT?".
the poor unwitting soul had no idea it was a trilogy.
doubtless, this is the title that's going through rational people's minds.
/., i expect better of you - stop trying so hard.
not that MS can't be discredited in various other ways, but this story reeks of grasping for straws.
besides - the register? *shakes head*
come off it and get with it.
one of the common mantras on /. is that security through obscurity is NOT security.
however, neither is encryption.
encryption and obscurity are MEASURES towards providing the illusion of security.
obscurity is a measure that says "as long as they don't sense this or think of it, we're ok."
encryption is a measure that says "as long as they don't crack this, we're ok."
neither is secure, but both together ARE decent measures, if you combine them right, kinda like front lines in a battle. have an invisibility shield (obscurity), but if that fails, have opaque defenses that are hard to break (encryption).
obscurity means you lose a level of trust with those inside the company - encryption means you lose a level of trust with the outside world.
i find that most slashdotters like to harp about MALICIOUS folks finding all the security flaws. what they fail to recognize is that there are GOOD guys also out there, helping find security flaws and bringing them to light. eeye.com are the good guys in this case, actively pursuing & finding security flaws and working WITH vendors to fix products.
open-source programmers the world over laugh at how hard it is for closed-sourcer's to fix their code, because 3rd parties can't examine it for bugs. however, in an instance like this, even though it is HARDER to find the bug, especially without the source code, the bug is still found and fixed, and agreeably handled. and no doubt that eeye has made a nice profitable business out of their security testing.
in retrospect, it smacks of plain un-willingness & hatred against MS when someone claims that bugs are harder to find in closed-source. it's harder, but it's UNWILLINGNESS to help that makes it IMPOSSIBLE.
Read this through a closed-source company's eyes.
and that's all i have to say about that.
sure, i'll try again - think beyond applications.
.NET . time has yet to tell how well this will work in terms of security & how obsolete it'll become. however, it's the step up from activex most MS developers wanted.
the technology i was referring to was activex. nice idea, but bad security behind it, and way too tied down to backwards compatability.
another nice idea:
think before you say the words.
his reply did NOT completely avoid the question. the concept he's trying to get across is that the technology they come out with is stuff that's first churning away internally, away from public eyes. this process of innovation takes several years before it comes to public light. by the time developers are told of what redmond is gonna roll out next, this (by now old) tech they've got in the works is already on the roadmap, and will most certainly be lagged compared with what's next on the table, as well as fall short of the development community's needs in some way.
you think that they snap their fingers one day with a new technology and ignore developers for a couple of months? no, they work hard for years, and aren't about to turn back on their roadmap after the hard work they've done.
think.