Runs like a one-legged dog cuz I don't have a p4 3.04gig with hyperthreading.
Neither do most people, and it runs rather well for them. The root of this problem revolves around knowing how to use what you have installed. If you can't figure out how to get Windows to work fast, then how can you be depended on to get something that's a lot more cryptic and less user friendly to work fast. (*nix distributions for example)
Yes, however who in their right mind would put slower memory than what was out into a new motherboard... That kinda makes upgrading not so worthwhile. You expect a big speed increase, but then your memory holds you back.
There are more OpenGL tutorials because there is no definitive all in one answer to how to do things in OpenGL. With DirectX there is the massive help file that helps you do things you only dream of. With OpenGL there is Googling for hours finding source that actually works and then figuring out why it works.
OpenGL is also just a rendering mechanism, more than likely when developing a game you are going to use some part of DirectX. Once you learn the setup routine for one part of DirectX, the rest become a walk in the park. If OpenGL could be that easy, and come with a great help package that included step by step tutorials, then it would be a lot better off.
OpenGL libraries are available for the PS2 and GameCube, and I've even heard rumor of the XBox. However, if you want to really take advantage of any of them it's all about direct hardware access. As for your mention of being cross platform, it is a proven formula for a game that does not utilize anything but the generic processing of any platform. If you want a game that really shines, find a game that was written well for only one platform and you might just be amaized at how well it looks/runs.
Real standars often mean a real pain. Those standards are not as cut in stone as many believe. Just look at Carmack's old plan's about having trouble with ATI implimenting functions that actually do as they are documented and you start to get the picture. Direct3D has become a lot easier to manage not only because you don't have to have different code paths for different video cards, but because it has things that you can default to in case someone impliments something horribly wrong. Combine that with the incredible ease of DirectInput and DirectSound, and you have a package that is quite possibly the easiest way to develop a game. SDL is alright for hobby-type development, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the quality of the whole DirectX package. Add on top of that better documentation and as a developer you start to wonder why people choose otherwise. Portability is second to functionality. If you want a game to come to your platform, you best have an easy way of getting it there.
Well, what if you want to listen to something suddenly and it's not there... This happened to me sometimes when the 32/64MB MP3 players were the only option. But now that I've had a HD based MP3 player for a few years, I tend to load it up and be set for a good amount of time. I recently got the Jukebox Zen with its FireWire connection and it was really nice to not have to wait. By the time I was done queueing all the music up, it was finished. (~15 mins for 12GB) However, if you have a smaller amount of music than your unit stores, the time it takes to transfer everything wont really matter because you won't be doing much swapping.
What you are referring to is possibly known as the pre-fetch in Windows XP. So I guess it has already been implimented. I think this may have been available in Windows 2000 as well, but I do not have first hand experience there.
1. Some people have excessive amounts of software installed. Myself included. I don't want all that eating up my RAM while I'm trying to play some game that needs it.
2. What about when the computer starts up? Wouldn't this cause it to take even longer than it already does? I want my computer up now, not tomorrow.
3. Some applications require a whole lot of memory. 3DS Max for example. I'd prefer if that program didn't eat more hard drive space because it has to remain in virtual memory. Any graphic editor eats up large amounts of RAM, usually. They are bad enough as it is, without being around no matter what.
Installation of applicatons, what is up with that? Why can't I just copy a file from the CD/Net and be done with it?
In a word: Piracy. This is a sad case of where ease of use is tossed out because of real world problems.
Another thing... What would one do with multiple CD applications? How would that work? And then there are options. There could be defaults for a simple installation, and then options if you do a regular install, but that just complicates the process needlessly.
While I don't readily agree that Windows 95 was the best gui ever, I do agree that the Mac gui was quite confusing. It made it seem like there was only one program running and the method to switch between programs was not very self explanatory. The task bar introduced in Windows 95 became a beautiful device, displaying important running programs and was always visible by default. There are quite a few other things introduced that helped to make Windows 95 a good gui. I liked the toolbars with common apps on them in the *nix world, but they were too hard to modify. They make a big deal over the start menu, however, it is much easier to use than navigating a file system.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither do most people, and it runs rather well for them. The root of this problem revolves around knowing how to use what you have installed. If you can't figure out how to get Windows to work fast, then how can you be depended on to get something that's a lot more cryptic and less user friendly to work fast. (*nix distributions for example)
Isn't that sort of the way a company works? They tie a few things in together so that they are guaranteed to have return business.
Yes, however who in their right mind would put slower memory than what was out into a new motherboard... That kinda makes upgrading not so worthwhile. You expect a big speed increase, but then your memory holds you back.
Cookies are easy to block in IE. I don't know what you are talking about unless your dad uses something like 5 or before.
You know too much, watch out or you may be the next target.... ;)
Nice post....kthxbye.
I wouldn't play Quake 3 if I were you. A game with a Mature rating (17+) might get you into a really bad situation with the kids parents.
Just get the GameBoy Advance game if you really want to play it. It has the first 3 games on one cart.
MS does something. Slashdot reacts with extreme criticism. Repeat next day.
$250 for a 40 GB drive, what a rip-off. $122 for 40GB notebook drive on PriceWatch.... I suggest all steer clear of this get rich quick scheme.
Let's not forget all the people who install a *nix distro with no password.
There is the fact that some internet sites require IE that make it required for some.
Let's all root for the under dog so that the economy of Washington goes down...... Sorry, don't think I'll bite on that one.
Think of how much money Japan will waste on figuring out how to add unicode w/ proper translations on an alternative.
And the reason this isn't popular on Macs/Linux/etc is because there are very few games worth getting?
There are more OpenGL tutorials because there is no definitive all in one answer to how to do things in OpenGL. With DirectX there is the massive help file that helps you do things you only dream of. With OpenGL there is Googling for hours finding source that actually works and then figuring out why it works.
OpenGL is also just a rendering mechanism, more than likely when developing a game you are going to use some part of DirectX. Once you learn the setup routine for one part of DirectX, the rest become a walk in the park. If OpenGL could be that easy, and come with a great help package that included step by step tutorials, then it would be a lot better off.
Actually, to get hardware texturing and lighting in OpenGL, a complete rewrite is quite necessary.
OpenGL libraries are available for the PS2 and GameCube, and I've even heard rumor of the XBox. However, if you want to really take advantage of any of them it's all about direct hardware access. As for your mention of being cross platform, it is a proven formula for a game that does not utilize anything but the generic processing of any platform. If you want a game that really shines, find a game that was written well for only one platform and you might just be amaized at how well it looks/runs.
Real standars often mean a real pain. Those standards are not as cut in stone as many believe. Just look at Carmack's old plan's about having trouble with ATI implimenting functions that actually do as they are documented and you start to get the picture. Direct3D has become a lot easier to manage not only because you don't have to have different code paths for different video cards, but because it has things that you can default to in case someone impliments something horribly wrong. Combine that with the incredible ease of DirectInput and DirectSound, and you have a package that is quite possibly the easiest way to develop a game. SDL is alright for hobby-type development, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the quality of the whole DirectX package. Add on top of that better documentation and as a developer you start to wonder why people choose otherwise. Portability is second to functionality. If you want a game to come to your platform, you best have an easy way of getting it there.
Well, not the Playstation, just the PS2 and the rest you mentioned.
Well, what if you want to listen to something suddenly and it's not there... This happened to me sometimes when the 32/64MB MP3 players were the only option. But now that I've had a HD based MP3 player for a few years, I tend to load it up and be set for a good amount of time. I recently got the Jukebox Zen with its FireWire connection and it was really nice to not have to wait. By the time I was done queueing all the music up, it was finished. (~15 mins for 12GB) However, if you have a smaller amount of music than your unit stores, the time it takes to transfer everything wont really matter because you won't be doing much swapping.
What you are referring to is possibly known as the pre-fetch in Windows XP. So I guess it has already been implimented. I think this may have been available in Windows 2000 as well, but I do not have first hand experience there.
1. Some people have excessive amounts of software installed. Myself included. I don't want all that eating up my RAM while I'm trying to play some game that needs it.
2. What about when the computer starts up? Wouldn't this cause it to take even longer than it already does? I want my computer up now, not tomorrow.
3. Some applications require a whole lot of memory. 3DS Max for example. I'd prefer if that program didn't eat more hard drive space because it has to remain in virtual memory. Any graphic editor eats up large amounts of RAM, usually. They are bad enough as it is, without being around no matter what.
This is a sad case of where ease of use is tossed out because of real world problems.
Another thing... What would one do with multiple CD applications? How would that work? And then there are options. There could be defaults for a simple installation, and then options if you do a regular install, but that just complicates the process needlessly.
While I don't readily agree that Windows 95 was the best gui ever, I do agree that the Mac gui was quite confusing. It made it seem like there was only one program running and the method to switch between programs was not very self explanatory. The task bar introduced in Windows 95 became a beautiful device, displaying important running programs and was always visible by default. There are quite a few other things introduced that helped to make Windows 95 a good gui. I liked the toolbars with common apps on them in the *nix world, but they were too hard to modify. They make a big deal over the start menu, however, it is much easier to use than navigating a file system.
Flamebait Detector Overload!