A dumb xbox fanboy. Gee, never seen one of those before...
You are kidding right? You couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own an xbox, I never planned to buy one, and I also don't plan on buying an xbox 360 (Though it's media capabilities might entice me). I'm strictly a PC gamer, and dislike console games in general. I'm really not sure how I could be an XBox fanboy.
Dual dual core machines in the 2.5 to 3ghz range or so are on the way for Apple and will most likely ship before the first xbox 360 hits the shelves.
The XB360 clocks in at 3.2, if these specs are real, not "2.5 to 3ghz". In addition, the XB360 is supposed to have THREE processors (cores), not two. If the posted specs are real it still puts Apple's fastest to shame.
And second the CPU in the xbox 360 isn't a 970 and can't be compared to it by clock speed. It doesn't take a developer with access to the hardware to know that.
It might as well be. As far as I can tell, each core in the XBOX360 should be significantly faster than a seperate PPC970. It looks to be about the same, but with something like HyperThreading added to each core. If you have information that says that the cores are slower clock-for-clock, feel free to share it, but for now it looks like each core should be faster.
The xbox 360 is weak. Sorry to burst your fanboy bubble. This is what happens when your previous effort goes in the red for 3 and a half billion dollars and the higher ups at your company slash your budget.I do hope next time you make a post like this you will make certain you know what the hell you are talking about before you make a fool of yourself. It helps to actually RTFA.
And not only is it weak, it is going to be weak by a wide margin compared to the PS3 and Revolution. This is going to be ugly for MS... Right, do you have proof? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that Cell must be faster simply because it has more cores, without any consideration for speed per core? I guess you're also forgetting the fact that the XB360 will be out a heck of a lot earlier than the PS3 or Revolution, possibly as much as a year earlier. So you're pretty stupid to suggest that the relative performance even matters at this point. Give any company a year of extra development time and they can put out something faster than what they have now, certainly.
My post can be summed up with an acronym STFU&RTFA
It will very likely be quite affordable... Microsoft will sell it at a huge loss hoping to make up the cash on xbox live, game licences, and so on.
It will be quite funny, really, the hardware will be faster than any desktop (And most servers) on the market now or then by a long shot (It will even blow away the fastest Apple G5s), and yet it will probably sell for well under $1000.
You can bet the xbox linux people are going to be scrambling to unlock this sucker. If the original xbox made for a nice cheap home server, the xbox 360 is probably faster than most quad-processor servers that cost ten times as much.
I say faster than quad servers because the CPUs the xbox ships with are each 500mhz faster than the fastest Apple ships now (2.7ghz). Combine that fact with the fact that there are diminishing returns for SMP, this means that you can probably get better performance out of 3x3.2 than 4x2.7
But hey, Apple doesn't make quad-processor systems or servers, and their servers top out at 2.3ghz.
So what am I trying and failing to say? The XBox 360 will pack an insane amount of punch, and yet be dirt cheap for what you get.
Keep in mind the first few screenshots on the site are from their new Source (HL2) port.
It's still a game, yes, and I suspect you mean unexpected as in non-gaming, but it is certainly one of the more original mods for UT2004 in that it breaks out of the type of game the engine was designed for.
Well, Onslaught was far from deathmatch, and Conquest is supposed to be even better. So I'd buy it. Heck, the only thing I play in UT2004 is onslaught mode.
People actually do use the onboard features of motherboards.
For example, the onboard sound solutions on motherboards have advanced to the point that most people don't purchase a third-party soundcard; there is simply not enough benefit when the onboard sound systems often offer 5.1 support, even EAX support.
Onboard video is also very popular in office environments where a faster video solution is not needed; it saves companies money.
Onboard NICs are particularly popular. I daresay that EVERYONE uses them, since there is no advantage to purchasing an add-on NIC unless one needs extra ports (And many motherboards provide 2 anyhow). Furthermore, there are several advantages to certain onboard gigabit NICs. Whereas PCI-based NICs tend to top out at 400 to 600 megabits due to the limitations of the PCI bus, many onboard gigabit cards are plugged directly into the northbridge via a dedicated high-speed bus that lets them circumvent the PCI bus.
As the sibling post mentioned, you are incorrect. SheepShaver is a PowerPC emulator, not an '040 emulator. It is plainly visible on the SheepShaver site, and this is of course what allows it to run OS9, a PowerPC-only OS.
While SheepShaver presents itself as a MacOS environment, it is plainly says on the site that "There is also a built-in PowerPC emulator for non-PowerPC systems."
I actually had a good experience purchasing a non-brand-name computer. I purchased a Compal whitebook and purchased the parts seperately (I paid to have it assembled for me however). Compal is an ODM, one of the companies that makes the notebooks for most major companies like Apple or Dell, and Compal is actually one of the largest ODMs at that.
My notebook has no brand or label, and the area usually reserved for a logo is blank. However I love my Compal CL56, and am very glad I chose it.
I too performed my own RAM upgrade, and located the RAM sockets by guessing at the most likely locations and unscrewing things. I have also dug deep under the top of the laptop to remove the CPU and heatsink combination for maintenance. However, the issue in the article as I understand it is not so much that he can't locate the SODIMM slots, but that the support from the company in doing so is non-existant.
That indeed seems to be a hefty speed increase, and on it's way to being usable as a general-use application. However if so much development and improvement was going on in the background, how come nobody ever updated the PearPC site? You'd think that in 9 months somebody would have had time to write up a paragraph on occasion.
Too bad, the hardware specs were impressive for the price, and a simple cheap memory upgrade would have turned the thing into a VERY nice machine for the price. But of course if Linare refuses to tell anyone where the SODIMM sockets are, then forget that.
But since there hasn't been a release in 8 or 9 months, and only one news post in that time, it IS dead as far as the public is concerned.
Besides, unless PearPC sees some hefty speed improvements, it won't be terribly useful no matter how "alive" it is. 15x slower than host? At that speed it will be years before PCs are fast enough for PearPC to be used by regular people to run their favourite OSX apps, and by then Apple will have something else out that people will want to run.
I also don't understand why PearPC doesn't simply stop development on the "generic" emulator. At 500x slower than host it will NEVER be of any use to regular folks, and I don't understand why all work isn't concentrated on the JITC, which might actually have a chance at becomming fast enough to be useful. Get us 10x or 5x slower than host and I will consider PearPC to be useful.
Maybe it didn't do wonders for the Dreamcast, but it DID do wonders for the PS2. Sony beat Nintendo and Microsoft to market by over a year. By the time the GameCube and Xbox were out, the PS2 already had a firm grip on the market.
The Dreamcast didn't just fail because of the PS2 hanging over it. For one thing, many believe that rampant piracy sunk the console, which was caused by poor hardware decisions by SEGA.
XBox live is more than just a matchmaking service. It's a standardized platform and interface for every xbox game that supports online gameplay. Instead of the PS2's spotty multiplayer support (A game MIGHT support voicecomm, or it might not), you get a set of common features that provides a consistant gameplay experience.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as I understand it, most people feel that XBox Live is a good thing.
Really? I find the XBox to be tired old technology that has trouble competing with modern PC games. The PS2 is significantly worse. I say it's about time for a new console.
There are different ways of generating diffs. You could do a per-line diff, or a per-byte diff. Or Rsync, which I understand works differently entirely.
Hopefully whatever method Google uses is not covered by the patents.
1) Compress all HTML content passed between Google and client 2) Use local cacheing 3) Send diffs (just what changed) of files that are in the cache but out of date.
I could refresh Slashdot over and over, and the only thing that I would have to download when the page changes is a compressed diff, probably a savings of at least an order of magnitude.
In the situation you describe though there are many computers using one connection. Since GWA interfaces with browsers via a simple HTTP proxy (The IE/Firefox integration is just for the "x seconds saved" display), you should be able to install GWA on one computer and set multiple other computers to use that proxy.
Of course Google might check to see if the machine making the request is on localhost.
Re:Sure I won't, but I am still annoyed I can't!
on
Google Web Accelerator
·
· Score: 3, Informative
GWA works fine with Opera. If you notice on the info page, you can maually set Opera's proxy settings to use GWA, you just don't get the "x seconds saved" figure in the browser.
Fact is they NEED a publisher, if only because of the XBOX port of HL2.
But a few things about getting a new publisher:
1) Vivendi had a lot of control over HL2 because they put money in at the very start (HL1). 2) Tons of publishers will compete to publish Valve's games, and Valve can set any conditions or terms they want 3) STEAM's price was not much less than retail only because of contractual obligations to Vivendi. Similarly, Vivendi forced Valve to delay HL2's release via STEAM until the retail release date even though the game was done
I see lower prices. Not significantly lower, but with no middle man and no interference, we might see another minor price cut. Right now STEAM was $5 less than retail. Perhaps we'll see $10 less than retail.
In addition, I would point out that STEAM as a concept does not require a credit card to function. Valve could just as easily produce plastic cards that were sold in every game store that contained a CD key. Much like cellphone pay-as-you-go cards, a user could purchase a game (or just plain STEAM credit) in a computer store with regular cash, and use that online with STEAM. Valve does not require a publisher to do this, just a few people to organize it. In fact, Valve is a big/popular enough company that I imagine if they simply printed the cards, stores would ask THEM to carry them, Valve wouldn't even have to go out seeking stores.
I doubt Time Warner could get away with that as easily or cleanly as a nobody company like Maui Xtremes, or whatever they're called. If word leaked out that they were stealing code, the resulting backlash would probably cause any number of problems for such a large corporation, which would then have to either develop their own emulator, or shut down the service. I can't see a company like Time Warner being so short sited.
Slashdot Mirror
A dumb xbox fanboy. Gee, never seen one of those before...
You are kidding right? You couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own an xbox, I never planned to buy one, and I also don't plan on buying an xbox 360 (Though it's media capabilities might entice me). I'm strictly a PC gamer, and dislike console games in general. I'm really not sure how I could be an XBox fanboy.
Dual dual core machines in the 2.5 to 3ghz range or so are on the way for Apple and will most likely ship before the first xbox 360 hits the shelves.
The XB360 clocks in at 3.2, if these specs are real, not "2.5 to 3ghz". In addition, the XB360 is supposed to have THREE processors (cores), not two. If the posted specs are real it still puts Apple's fastest to shame.
And second the CPU in the xbox 360 isn't a 970 and can't be compared to it by clock speed. It doesn't take a developer with access to the hardware to know that.
It might as well be. As far as I can tell, each core in the XBOX360 should be significantly faster than a seperate PPC970. It looks to be about the same, but with something like HyperThreading added to each core. If you have information that says that the cores are slower clock-for-clock, feel free to share it, but for now it looks like each core should be faster.
The xbox 360 is weak. Sorry to burst your fanboy bubble. This is what happens when your previous effort goes in the red for 3 and a half billion dollars and the higher ups at your company slash your budget.I do hope next time you make a post like this you will make certain you know what the hell you are talking about before you make a fool of yourself. It helps to actually RTFA.
And not only is it weak, it is going to be weak by a wide margin compared to the PS3 and Revolution. This is going to be ugly for MS...
Right, do you have proof? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that Cell must be faster simply because it has more cores, without any consideration for speed per core? I guess you're also forgetting the fact that the XB360 will be out a heck of a lot earlier than the PS3 or Revolution, possibly as much as a year earlier. So you're pretty stupid to suggest that the relative performance even matters at this point. Give any company a year of extra development time and they can put out something faster than what they have now, certainly.
My post can be summed up with an acronym STFU&RTFA
It will very likely be quite affordable... Microsoft will sell it at a huge loss hoping to make up the cash on xbox live, game licences, and so on.
It will be quite funny, really, the hardware will be faster than any desktop (And most servers) on the market now or then by a long shot (It will even blow away the fastest Apple G5s), and yet it will probably sell for well under $1000.
You can bet the xbox linux people are going to be scrambling to unlock this sucker. If the original xbox made for a nice cheap home server, the xbox 360 is probably faster than most quad-processor servers that cost ten times as much.
I say faster than quad servers because the CPUs the xbox ships with are each 500mhz faster than the fastest Apple ships now (2.7ghz). Combine that fact with the fact that there are diminishing returns for SMP, this means that you can probably get better performance out of 3x3.2 than 4x2.7
But hey, Apple doesn't make quad-processor systems or servers, and their servers top out at 2.3ghz.
So what am I trying and failing to say? The XBox 360 will pack an insane amount of punch, and yet be dirt cheap for what you get.
A good example of such an unexpected thing is AlienSwarm, a top-down squad-control type game:
http://www.blackcatgames.com/swarm/
Keep in mind the first few screenshots on the site are from their new Source (HL2) port.
It's still a game, yes, and I suspect you mean unexpected as in non-gaming, but it is certainly one of the more original mods for UT2004 in that it breaks out of the type of game the engine was designed for.
Well, Onslaught was far from deathmatch, and Conquest is supposed to be even better. So I'd buy it. Heck, the only thing I play in UT2004 is onslaught mode.
People actually do use the onboard features of motherboards.
For example, the onboard sound solutions on motherboards have advanced to the point that most people don't purchase a third-party soundcard; there is simply not enough benefit when the onboard sound systems often offer 5.1 support, even EAX support.
Onboard video is also very popular in office environments where a faster video solution is not needed; it saves companies money.
Onboard NICs are particularly popular. I daresay that EVERYONE uses them, since there is no advantage to purchasing an add-on NIC unless one needs extra ports (And many motherboards provide 2 anyhow). Furthermore, there are several advantages to certain onboard gigabit NICs. Whereas PCI-based NICs tend to top out at 400 to 600 megabits due to the limitations of the PCI bus, many onboard gigabit cards are plugged directly into the northbridge via a dedicated high-speed bus that lets them circumvent the PCI bus.
As the sibling post mentioned, you are incorrect. SheepShaver is a PowerPC emulator, not an '040 emulator. It is plainly visible on the SheepShaver site, and this is of course what allows it to run OS9, a PowerPC-only OS.
While SheepShaver presents itself as a MacOS environment, it is plainly says on the site that "There is also a built-in PowerPC emulator for non-PowerPC systems."
I actually had a good experience purchasing a non-brand-name computer. I purchased a Compal whitebook and purchased the parts seperately (I paid to have it assembled for me however). Compal is an ODM, one of the companies that makes the notebooks for most major companies like Apple or Dell, and Compal is actually one of the largest ODMs at that.
My notebook has no brand or label, and the area usually reserved for a logo is blank. However I love my Compal CL56, and am very glad I chose it.
I too performed my own RAM upgrade, and located the RAM sockets by guessing at the most likely locations and unscrewing things. I have also dug deep under the top of the laptop to remove the CPU and heatsink combination for maintenance. However, the issue in the article as I understand it is not so much that he can't locate the SODIMM slots, but that the support from the company in doing so is non-existant.
But if CVS was still being updated, and the patches were still being published, then what was to stop CherryOS from using those?
And why did any of this prevent news updates?
Good to know, I've disabled prefetching in GWA as a result.
Ah, good news. How does it compare speed-wise to PearPC?
That indeed seems to be a hefty speed increase, and on it's way to being usable as a general-use application. However if so much development and improvement was going on in the background, how come nobody ever updated the PearPC site? You'd think that in 9 months somebody would have had time to write up a paragraph on occasion.
Too bad, the hardware specs were impressive for the price, and a simple cheap memory upgrade would have turned the thing into a VERY nice machine for the price. But of course if Linare refuses to tell anyone where the SODIMM sockets are, then forget that.
Unfortunately Sheepshaver doesn't run under Windows, and as such it's use is extremely limited.
But since there hasn't been a release in 8 or 9 months, and only one news post in that time, it IS dead as far as the public is concerned.
Besides, unless PearPC sees some hefty speed improvements, it won't be terribly useful no matter how "alive" it is. 15x slower than host? At that speed it will be years before PCs are fast enough for PearPC to be used by regular people to run their favourite OSX apps, and by then Apple will have something else out that people will want to run.
I also don't understand why PearPC doesn't simply stop development on the "generic" emulator. At 500x slower than host it will NEVER be of any use to regular folks, and I don't understand why all work isn't concentrated on the JITC, which might actually have a chance at becomming fast enough to be useful. Get us 10x or 5x slower than host and I will consider PearPC to be useful.
Maybe it didn't do wonders for the Dreamcast, but it DID do wonders for the PS2. Sony beat Nintendo and Microsoft to market by over a year. By the time the GameCube and Xbox were out, the PS2 already had a firm grip on the market.
The Dreamcast didn't just fail because of the PS2 hanging over it. For one thing, many believe that rampant piracy sunk the console, which was caused by poor hardware decisions by SEGA.
XBox live is more than just a matchmaking service. It's a standardized platform and interface for every xbox game that supports online gameplay. Instead of the PS2's spotty multiplayer support (A game MIGHT support voicecomm, or it might not), you get a set of common features that provides a consistant gameplay experience.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as I understand it, most people feel that XBox Live is a good thing.
Really? I find the XBox to be tired old technology that has trouble competing with modern PC games. The PS2 is significantly worse. I say it's about time for a new console.
Indeed it is, but of course it also does more.
There are different ways of generating diffs. You could do a per-line diff, or a per-byte diff. Or Rsync, which I understand works differently entirely.
Hopefully whatever method Google uses is not covered by the patents.
I disagree. Opera's advantages seem to be in rendering speed, not transfer times. GWA accelerates transfer times, which would benefit Opera.
Nice try, but Yahoo! Mail works perfectly through the Google Web Accelerator. Better even.
The GWA does three things that save bandwidth:
1) Compress all HTML content passed between Google and client
2) Use local cacheing
3) Send diffs (just what changed) of files that are in the cache but out of date.
I could refresh Slashdot over and over, and the only thing that I would have to download when the page changes is a compressed diff, probably a savings of at least an order of magnitude.
In the situation you describe though there are many computers using one connection. Since GWA interfaces with browsers via a simple HTTP proxy (The IE/Firefox integration is just for the "x seconds saved" display), you should be able to install GWA on one computer and set multiple other computers to use that proxy.
Of course Google might check to see if the machine making the request is on localhost.
GWA works fine with Opera. If you notice on the info page, you can maually set Opera's proxy settings to use GWA, you just don't get the "x seconds saved" figure in the browser.
Fact is they NEED a publisher, if only because of the XBOX port of HL2.
But a few things about getting a new publisher:
1) Vivendi had a lot of control over HL2 because they put money in at the very start (HL1).
2) Tons of publishers will compete to publish Valve's games, and Valve can set any conditions or terms they want
3) STEAM's price was not much less than retail only because of contractual obligations to Vivendi. Similarly, Vivendi forced Valve to delay HL2's release via STEAM until the retail release date even though the game was done
I see lower prices. Not significantly lower, but with no middle man and no interference, we might see another minor price cut. Right now STEAM was $5 less than retail. Perhaps we'll see $10 less than retail.
In addition, I would point out that STEAM as a concept does not require a credit card to function. Valve could just as easily produce plastic cards that were sold in every game store that contained a CD key. Much like cellphone pay-as-you-go cards, a user could purchase a game (or just plain STEAM credit) in a computer store with regular cash, and use that online with STEAM. Valve does not require a publisher to do this, just a few people to organize it. In fact, Valve is a big/popular enough company that I imagine if they simply printed the cards, stores would ask THEM to carry them, Valve wouldn't even have to go out seeking stores.
On a local network there is no point streaming it at all; you might as well just play files right over SMB.
I doubt Time Warner could get away with that as easily or cleanly as a nobody company like Maui Xtremes, or whatever they're called. If word leaked out that they were stealing code, the resulting backlash would probably cause any number of problems for such a large corporation, which would then have to either develop their own emulator, or shut down the service. I can't see a company like Time Warner being so short sited.