ex: in Opera I can right click hold and mouse wheel to change windows.
Yep, that's what made me stick to Opera, too. But I'm sure Mozilla will be there, eventually, they've ripped most of the other good features of Opera so far.;)
LCD are improving, and some displays have pixel refresh times low enough to make them viable for watching movies and playing games. Not exactly on par with monitors, but in many cases the advantages outweigh that. But as I said, this is only true for some displays, the majority is crap for gaming. As reference, read the LCD reviews on Tom's Hardware.
No, your original point ("a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249"") is not valid (and does not equal the point you make in the last post).
1) There are cheaper GF4-based cards available. Any GF4 based card, including the extremely cheap GF4 fulfills what you were referring to in your original post, that is, "a Geforce 4".
2) The card you linked to might not be Nvidia's top of line model, but it's still the second fastest. Most price-aware consumer's, if they'd chose a GF4, would not go for a 4400, but rather for a Ti4200. The store you link to does not have any Ti4200, which leads me to believe it sucks. Most German online stores have GF4 Ti4200 cards for 215 - 250 (including all taxes).
Yes, of course you should have mentioned you were talking about Canadian Dollars. On an international forum that's self-confessedly US centric, "$" refers to the US-Dollar, and not the various other forms.
Anyway, you're still spreading FUD. You said, I quote, "For example, a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249." The currency is not that important really, the fact remains that, according to you, "a" GF4 costs nearly twice as much as a Nintendo GameCube is BS. The list price for the GC is 250 USD, the list price for a GF4 Ti4200 is 200 USD, list prices for (crappy) GF4 MX cards are way lower.
For example, a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249.
"A" GeForce 4 doesn't cost $399. The fastest cards available might cost that much, but the models that most people buy retail for about $200. You're spreading FUD.
There's an in-depth article available in English from the German Heise.de newsticker. Read it here.
There's also a brief article on The Register available here.
Just thought I'd add a few tidbits since the news post doesn't actually link to any objective press coverage, company press releases are usually not the best way to inform oneself.
There is no "real viable ATX style" board for the Transmeta processors, since there is just no need for them in the desktop segment. The main advantage of the Crusoe, low power usage, is no advantage in desktop computers which can draw a (more or less) arbitrary amount of energy. The very low generation of heat would also be an advantage, but there are already low-performance-low-heat Via chips which run on existing hardware and only need passive cooling, so why bother with even lower heat gear.
You don't see desktop computers based on a Transmeta just as you don't see desktops based on StrongARMs.
1) Source, please. Not saying you're lying, but I don't really trust the words of an AC out of principle.
2) Besides, as long as it renders it at consistently higher than 30 fps, I'm fine.
3) Is UT2003 one of those "newest Unreal-engine based games"? UT 2003 is slated for a Q3/02 release. Claiming that a Q3/02 game won't run on Q2/02 high-end graphics cards is nothing short of ridiculous.
The GF4-MX is a very fast card for existing games, but it is less well suited to Doom, due to the lower texture unit count and the lack of vertex shaders.
Most existing games usually only make use of the DirectX 7 instruction set, which the GF2 architecture supports very well, but some current and many future games rely on the functions added in the GF3 series of cards. (One example for such a game would be The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, which has some gorgeous additional eye candy like reflective water on GF3 and GF4 Ti, but not GF4 MX cards.)
The step from GF3 to GF4 is not that important in that way, existing functions were enhanced and sped up, but there were no similarily ground breaking functions added. Seems to be quite a common thing for Nvidia cards, as the same was true for TNT and TNT2, the original GeForce and the GF2 (that was when hardware T&L was introduced, remember that hype?) and now with GF3 and GF4.
GF4 Ti4200 is just about the best bang for the buck you can get right now. Fast enough to run everything released now and during the next, say, 6 to 12 months at very high settings, but still affordable, not (way) more expensive than, say, CPU or mainboard like a GF4 Ti4600 would be.
Well, while Doom III certainly looks good, I don't think the whole "medium quality" issue is so big a deal. If it was, they'd have taken more of an effort and shown it at high quality, or at least they'd have told just about everyone that it'd look better at high quality.
In the "interview" with Shacknews (actually it's just one email), Carmack says that high quality settings opposed to medium ones would mean "uncompressed textures" and "anisotropic filtering". While especially anisotropic filtering is nice, it's not that big of a deal. The game would look better, but not stunningly so, and I'm not actually sure if you'd notice the higher quality in the low res movies that are available on the net.
The interview is quite interesting, though, even though it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know (Nvidia faster than Ati, Ati's drivers suck, GF4 Ti best buy). Please note that the story (for some reason) links to page two of the review, page one is available, too.:P
You won't be able to run Doom III on any current console. At least not by the look of things. In one year, console graphics will be a joke compared to what PCs can do.
Just get the mid end equipment, that or last generation high end equipment. Right now, the GF4 Ti4200 is a very good buy, at ~$200. It's still one of the most expensive parts inside the box, but very good bang for the buck. If you want an even cheaper solution, go for a GF3 Ti200. It's still fast enough to play everything (including, I assume, Doom III), and goes for like ~$120.
Whatever you do, don't get a GF4 MX. They aren't actually that slow, but their architecure is on the level of the old GF2s.
StarOffice has some features that were left out of OpenOffice because they rely on proprietary code.
This is the part of the official FAQ pertaining to this:
Q. What are the differences between StarOffice 6.0 software and the OpenOffice.org 1.0?
A. StarOffice 6.0 softwre is a commercial product aimed at organizations and consumers while OpenOffice.org 1.0 is aimed at users of free software, independent developers and the open source community. StarOffice includes licensed-in, third-party technology such as:
Spellchecker and thesaurus Database component (Software AG Adabas D). Select fonts including Windows metrically equivalent fonts and Asian language fonts Select filters, including WordPerfect filters and Asian word processor filters Integration of additional templates and extensive clipart gallery
In addition to product differences, StarOffice offers:
Updates/upgrades on CD Sun installation and user documentation 24x7 Web based support for enterprises and consumers Help desk support Warranties and indemnification guarantee Training Professional services for migration and deployment
For more information on components and services available for the OpenOffice.org product, visit http://www.openoffice.org site.
The main difference is probably the thesaurus and the database. OpenOffice has its own free spellchecker, don't know if it's as good or better than the proprietary one.
Yep, we need more of this. Some small tutorials, and lots of additions and enhancements to them in their discussion. Maybe someone would be willing to rewrite the tutorial after a week with all the +4 replies in mind. Sounds pretty sweet, I think.
Ah BS. Slashdot (explicitly?) welcomes participation, Slashdot "opted-in" for user messages. There is a difference between a public web service like Slashdot and a private email account, and if you can't see that then you can't be helped.
This is, indeed, great news. Sending spam in the EU is effectively illegal, and I assume this will help, at least a bit. At any rate, this is a step in the right direction and a signal that Spam won't be tolerated in the future.
Of course, this won't immediatly get rid of a lot, if any, spam. Most of it already is sent from countries outside EU legislation, which won't be affected at all by this. I don't know whether EU companies can legally set up a server in Asia and spam people inside the EU from there, though - hopefully that's not allowed.
Actually enforcing these laws is another very difficult thing. After all, copyright violation is illegal, too, and still very widespread on the internet. On the other hand, spam should be easier to get rid of than piracy, since piracy is a (more or less) underground movement with (more or less) secret organisation, while spam by its very definition is being sent out in the open. But still, spammers can hop servers just as easily.
So, this won't acually change a whole lot, but as I said, it totally is a step in the right direction. Now if the EU would only rethink their DMCA ideas...
Actually, the first human to set a foot on Mars is called John Boone. =)
Oh and if you haven't y'all should read Red Mars (and the other two books of the series). They're extremely interesting, an awesome mix of Sci-Fi and politics that is not too unreal too ever happen.
What's to explain? They assume they'll sell even more if there's less piracy. The gaming market is growing, but it will have to grow if the PC gaming market is to survive as well as all the three console markets.
The companies selling consoles in particular, ie Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, have a special interest to get rid of piracy. While it has been quite correctly stated that the success of the PS is in big part due to the fact that it was relatively easy to pirate, the manufacturers aren't happy at all when they sell lots of consoles but not so many games - after all, none of the companies gets any money from selling the consoles themselves. Nintendo used to, until the lastest price drop, but not so anymore, and Microsoft pays an estimated $180 per console. So obviously, they need to sell a heap of games to get even, not to mention make a profit.
If piracy was really rampant in the console market, it'd go down, and fast. But although two out of three of the current consoles are already cracked, it isn't likely to get very bad. Console gamers are (on average!) less experienced with computer than the PC gamers, and even most PC gamer enthusiast will have a relatively hard time getting console warez from the net. Not that it's impossible, but even the rips, ie the versions with some of the game data removed are CD sized downloads, if not larger. That's probably the most effective protection, anyway, the original games are often DVD sized, so that people without a DVD burner won't be able to do anything with them even if they manage to get them.
Ah well I could ramble on and on on this, suffice to say, I don't think the gaming industry is in any danger because of piracy; I don't think it's helping, either, but the industry associations obviously exaggerate.
Can't access it. Just me, or is the site slashdotted barely 3 minutes after the story is posted?!
Oh well, bad pun incoming, he could also use his propellor head to levitate. Heh.
I think the interface is horrible (a bit too many mouseovers), although the presentation in itself isn't too bad. It's certainly quite interesting, though I'm not sure if apart from that, it is actually useful...
Oh and it appears to be slashdotted? Can't get any more results, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
LCD are improving, and some displays have pixel refresh times low enough to make them viable for watching movies and playing games. Not exactly on par with monitors, but in many cases the advantages outweigh that. But as I said, this is only true for some displays, the majority is crap for gaming. As reference, read the LCD reviews on Tom's Hardware.
No, your original point ("a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249"") is not valid (and does not equal the point you make in the last post).
1) There are cheaper GF4-based cards available. Any GF4 based card, including the extremely cheap GF4 fulfills what you were referring to in your original post, that is, "a Geforce 4".
2) The card you linked to might not be Nvidia's top of line model, but it's still the second fastest. Most price-aware consumer's, if they'd chose a GF4, would not go for a 4400, but rather for a Ti4200. The store you link to does not have any Ti4200, which leads me to believe it sucks. Most German online stores have GF4 Ti4200 cards for 215 - 250 (including all taxes).
Yes, of course you should have mentioned you were talking about Canadian Dollars. On an international forum that's self-confessedly US centric, "$" refers to the US-Dollar, and not the various other forms.
Anyway, you're still spreading FUD. You said, I quote, "For example, a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249." The currency is not that important really, the fact remains that, according to you, "a" GF4 costs nearly twice as much as a Nintendo GameCube is BS. The list price for the GC is 250 USD, the list price for a GF4 Ti4200 is 200 USD, list prices for (crappy) GF4 MX cards are way lower.
For example, a GeForce 4 would cost me $399 whereas a GameCube only costs $249.
"A" GeForce 4 doesn't cost $399. The fastest cards available might cost that much, but the models that most people buy retail for about $200. You're spreading FUD.
There's an in-depth article available in English from the German Heise.de newsticker. Read it here.
There's also a brief article on The Register available here.
Just thought I'd add a few tidbits since the news post doesn't actually link to any objective press coverage, company press releases are usually not the best way to inform oneself.
There is no "real viable ATX style" board for the Transmeta processors, since there is just no need for them in the desktop segment. The main advantage of the Crusoe, low power usage, is no advantage in desktop computers which can draw a (more or less) arbitrary amount of energy. The very low generation of heat would also be an advantage, but there are already low-performance-low-heat Via chips which run on existing hardware and only need passive cooling, so why bother with even lower heat gear.
You don't see desktop computers based on a Transmeta just as you don't see desktops based on StrongARMs.
1) Source, please. Not saying you're lying, but I don't really trust the words of an AC out of principle.
2) Besides, as long as it renders it at consistently higher than 30 fps, I'm fine.
3) Is UT2003 one of those "newest Unreal-engine based games"? UT 2003 is slated for a Q3/02 release. Claiming that a Q3/02 game won't run on Q2/02 high-end graphics cards is nothing short of ridiculous.
The step from GF3 to GF4 is not that important in that way, existing functions were enhanced and sped up, but there were no similarily ground breaking functions added. Seems to be quite a common thing for Nvidia cards, as the same was true for TNT and TNT2, the original GeForce and the GF2 (that was when hardware T&L was introduced, remember that hype?) and now with GF3 and GF4.
GF4 Ti4200 is just about the best bang for the buck you can get right now. Fast enough to run everything released now and during the next, say, 6 to 12 months at very high settings, but still affordable, not (way) more expensive than, say, CPU or mainboard like a GF4 Ti4600 would be.
Well, while Doom III certainly looks good, I don't think the whole "medium quality" issue is so big a deal. If it was, they'd have taken more of an effort and shown it at high quality, or at least they'd have told just about everyone that it'd look better at high quality.
:P
In the "interview" with Shacknews (actually it's just one email), Carmack says that high quality settings opposed to medium ones would mean "uncompressed textures" and "anisotropic filtering". While especially anisotropic filtering is nice, it's not that big of a deal. The game would look better, but not stunningly so, and I'm not actually sure if you'd notice the higher quality in the low res movies that are available on the net.
The interview is quite interesting, though, even though it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know (Nvidia faster than Ati, Ati's drivers suck, GF4 Ti best buy). Please note that the story (for some reason) links to page two of the review, page one is available, too.
You won't be able to run Doom III on any current console. At least not by the look of things. In one year, console graphics will be a joke compared to what PCs can do.
Just get the mid end equipment, that or last generation high end equipment. Right now, the GF4 Ti4200 is a very good buy, at ~$200. It's still one of the most expensive parts inside the box, but very good bang for the buck.
If you want an even cheaper solution, go for a GF3 Ti200. It's still fast enough to play everything (including, I assume, Doom III), and goes for like ~$120.
Whatever you do, don't get a GF4 MX. They aren't actually that slow, but their architecure is on the level of the old GF2s.
As I highlighted, I think the infrastructure to do this properly is already there.
This is the part of the official FAQ pertaining to this:The main difference is probably the thesaurus and the database. OpenOffice has its own free spellchecker, don't know if it's as good or better than the proprietary one.
Bend words as much as you want, as I said, if you don't see a difference between both things you can't be helped.
Yep, we need more of this. Some small tutorials, and lots of additions and enhancements to them in their discussion. Maybe someone would be willing to rewrite the tutorial after a week with all the +4 replies in mind. Sounds pretty sweet, I think.
Ah BS. Slashdot (explicitly?) welcomes participation, Slashdot "opted-in" for user messages. There is a difference between a public web service like Slashdot and a private email account, and if you can't see that then you can't be helped.
This is, indeed, great news. Sending spam in the EU is effectively illegal, and I assume this will help, at least a bit. At any rate, this is a step in the right direction and a signal that Spam won't be tolerated in the future. ...
Of course, this won't immediatly get rid of a lot, if any, spam. Most of it already is sent from countries outside EU legislation, which won't be affected at all by this. I don't know whether EU companies can legally set up a server in Asia and spam people inside the EU from there, though - hopefully that's not allowed.
Actually enforcing these laws is another very difficult thing. After all, copyright violation is illegal, too, and still very widespread on the internet. On the other hand, spam should be easier to get rid of than piracy, since piracy is a (more or less) underground movement with (more or less) secret organisation, while spam by its very definition is being sent out in the open. But still, spammers can hop servers just as easily.
So, this won't acually change a whole lot, but as I said, it totally is a step in the right direction. Now if the EU would only rethink their DMCA ideas
Actually, the first human to set a foot on Mars is called John Boone. =)
Oh and if you haven't y'all should read Red Mars (and the other two books of the series). They're extremely interesting, an awesome mix of Sci-Fi and politics that is not too unreal too ever happen.
What's to explain? They assume they'll sell even more if there's less piracy. The gaming market is growing, but it will have to grow if the PC gaming market is to survive as well as all the three console markets.
The companies selling consoles in particular, ie Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, have a special interest to get rid of piracy. While it has been quite correctly stated that the success of the PS is in big part due to the fact that it was relatively easy to pirate, the manufacturers aren't happy at all when they sell lots of consoles but not so many games - after all, none of the companies gets any money from selling the consoles themselves. Nintendo used to, until the lastest price drop, but not so anymore, and Microsoft pays an estimated $180 per console. So obviously, they need to sell a heap of games to get even, not to mention make a profit.
If piracy was really rampant in the console market, it'd go down, and fast. But although two out of three of the current consoles are already cracked, it isn't likely to get very bad. Console gamers are (on average!) less experienced with computer than the PC gamers, and even most PC gamer enthusiast will have a relatively hard time getting console warez from the net. Not that it's impossible, but even the rips, ie the versions with some of the game data removed are CD sized downloads, if not larger. That's probably the most effective protection, anyway, the original games are often DVD sized, so that people without a DVD burner won't be able to do anything with them even if they manage to get them.
Ah well I could ramble on and on on this, suffice to say, I don't think the gaming industry is in any danger because of piracy; I don't think it's helping, either, but the industry associations obviously exaggerate.
Can't access it. Just me, or is the site slashdotted barely 3 minutes after the story is posted?!
Oh well, bad pun incoming, he could also use his propellor head to levitate. Heh.
I think the interface is horrible (a bit too many mouseovers), although the presentation in itself isn't too bad. It's certainly quite interesting, though I'm not sure if apart from that, it is actually useful ...
Oh and it appears to be slashdotted? Can't get any more results, at least.
Your computer is quite obviously possessed. ;) Sprinkling holy water on it while it's making those noises will likely put it to rest, permanently. :)