I don't give a shit what the games look like. I'm not a gamer! I'm am only pointing out that it is inaccurate to say that the GC is faster than the PS2.
Also, Nintendo *does* list maximum theoretical numbers in their SDK docs. The GC can push a max of about 32M polygons per second, with no texturing and simple shading. This is much lower than the ~60M polygons per second the PS2 can push under the same circumstances.
The games look different than on the Gamecube. Most Gamecube games have lot's of special effects, bright colors, nicely filtered textures, etc. However, their models are relatively low polygon count. The PS2 tends to have very high-detail models, but with lower image quality. Personally, I prefer the high-detail look of the PS2.
Also, you have to consider that even though the PS2 is more powerful, it's a lot harder to program. The PS1 had games that looked much better than what you found on the Saturn, but the Saturn was significantly more powerful.
And the PS2 has practically no textruing capabilities, It's got twice the textured fill rate of the Gamecube.
as well as a mere 8 MB of VRAM to work with. Actually, it's 4MB of VRAM, but that's compared to the gamecube's 1MB of VRAM. It also runs at 48GB/sec compared to the gamecube's 10.4GB/sec.
The gamecube's architecture allows it to get more "free" special effects, but the PS2 has much more raw power.
The Gamecube hardware is on average as powerful as the X-Box, being better in some aspects and weaker in others. It's also almost universally better than the PS2.
Are you insane? The PS2 has faster main memory bandwidth, *way* more graphics memory bandwidth, much more vector processing capability, four times as many graphics pipelines, etc.
Quite a few (younger)left wing people I know seem to be more interested in dissent than in the actual issues. On the other hand, a lot of right wing people *I* know seem to be more interested indulging their knee-jerk fear of gays, foreigners, etc, than with the actual political tenents (fiscal responsibility, civil society, etc), of the American right-wing.
Both sides have a contingent that they are ashamed off (or ought to be ashamed off). It seems to me, however, that the crazy protesters are at least not in control of the left, but that the reactionaries are firmly in control of the right. How else do explain the fact that the current Republican platform is largely at odds with conservative principles, while the current Democratic platform is largely consistent with liberal principles? How do you explain a supposedly conservative President that passed hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare programs?
Look at the number of people who would rather blow whistles at an anti-war rally than write letters to their Senators and Representatives. I think it's important to remember that Senators and Representatives are beholden to public opinion. We have (almost) no true statesmen left in Congress. They will not do anything that could incite a strong public reaction. Hence you have liberals (who supposedly care about civil liberties), vote almost unanimously in favor of something like USA PATRIOT. The goal of protesting is not so much to convince legislators, but to have some visceral impact on the people.
I think it is an unfortunate, but unavoidable fact of reality that emotional spectacles have more of an effect on the public than intellectual arguments. I saw Fahrenheit 911, and even though I agree with the basic ideas of the movie, I detested the way those ideas were presented. However, Fahrenheit 911 seemed to have a lot more impact on the people than all the logical arguments posed by the anti-war people ever did.
It is becuase they do not want to be on the same side as a bunch of hysterical "No Blood for Oil" protestors. I don't know about that. I remember rightist protestors (and major rightist talking heads), saying after 9/11 how America deserved it because of feminists and gays. Would people rather be on the same side as those nut-jobs?
The iPod has dual With regards to the iPod, it's got dual 90MHz processors (not 166 as I originally said). They're not 300MHz processors, but they aren't exactly insubstantial.
With regards to the minidisc player, yes it has much less to do than a PSP, but the big point of contention here is the cost of the optical disc. The minidisc player shows that the optical disc doesn't take nearly as much power as people think it does.
With regards to the PSP's battery life, Sony has not said anything about the estimated time for games being 2 hours. They gave only a single 6-10 hour number, and did not specify whether it was for games or what. Rumors on the internet range from 2 hours for games, to 8 hours for games.
The fact that they didn't design the system in a way to allow for backwards compatibility is their own fault. Backwards compatibility with what? You think Sony can make it compatible with GBA games without getting their ass sued by Nintendo?
Ugh, my last comment got clipped due to bad HTML. With regards to your point (1):
I'd point out that Sony minidisc players get 40+ hours on a single AA. I'd also point out that the dual-300MHz processors on the PSP aren't that far from the dual 166MHz processors on the iPod. The PSP will probably have worse battery life than the DS, but for playing the same sorts of games as the DS, I don't think it'll be that huge a difference.
1) I'll belive when I see it. Nintendo already has a portable that can easily get 8 hours of battery life and Sony is using a disc-based system.2) One word: Internet How useful is the internet on such a tiny screen? When are you in a position to have a wifi AP nearby, but not in a position to get to a terminal? In any case, the PSP has 802.11b too, although I don't think it'll be very useful.
4) Personally, I couldn't care less. Many people will see this feature as a good thing, though. MP3 support will make the PSP very nice for those who'd otherwise have to carry a gameboy + an iPod. 1.8GB minidiscs will be able to hold a decent amount of music. In any case, my comment about the MP3s was directed at the fact that the OP claimed that Sony would lock you into proprietory formats.
I don't know how much that disk is going to add to the battery life. I've got a minidisc player that's a couple of years old, and it get's close to 40 hours of battery life on a single AA battery. I'm sure the PSP's drive is even more power-efficient.
1) With regards to battery life Sony's projected batterly life is the same as Nintendo's --- 6-10 hours. Both will fall short, probably by an equal amount.
2) Wireless multiplayer doesn't seem very useful to me. First, it'll kill battery life. Second, can you think of a situation where you're in the position to play a game multiplayer, but need to use wireless? I mean, I can imagine playing in the car or something with a friend, but you don't need wireless for that. Most people will probably just use a link-cable anyway, to save on battery.
3) With regards to backwards compatibility, backwards compatibility with what? Full-size PS1 CDs???
4) Sony has announced that the PSP will support MP3s.
More or less the same is true of GNOME and KDE apps too. The major shortcuts (including the ones you mentioned) are the same.
In any case, the title of this thread is "too many toolkits." Obviously, that is not the case, relative to the other popular desktop operating system. Standards between apps is a seperate issue.
So where are you getting the GC's max polygons/sec number? The only numbers officialy released, that I know of, are the ones touted for in-game numbers, not for max theoretical polygons/sec. According to IGN the 33M number is from the official documentation, for single-textured triangles.
And, BTW, the PS2 can't come anywhere near 20M polygons/sec in-game, unless there are very few light sources, no physics, no Z-buffering, no gouraud shading, etc. The SDK shows 30M gouraud shaded, textured, fogged pixels per second. Depending on the size of your triangles, you should be able to do z-buffered and alpha-blending triangles at this rate. The Myriad engine achives 17M polygons/second in the real game, with 33M polygons per second for pre-lit landscape.
Dude. It's not our job to keep them employed. Both the UK and the United States are free countries. I can do what I want in my free time. If that's bad for them, well, though luck, that's how free markets work.
Then you better recall those thousands of desktops across the organization that are running Windows. Because on your average desktop, you've got a *minimum* of three toolkits (.NET, Office & Luna), and four look & feels (.NET, Office, Luna, Media Player).
applications having the same look-n-feel on Mac OS or Windows, In what alternate reality? Windows, in particular, is completely schizo. You've got so many toolkits:
Now, this doesn't count any non-Microsoft apps! Yes, all this schizo-osity is from a single company! Throw iTunes in there, or ephpod, or musicmatch, or AOL (all common apps), and you get even more schizo-osity. Just having GTK+ and Qt is looking pretty good right now, isn't it?
Eh, the only games I liked on that list are Metriod Prime and Mario Sunshine. Even those couldn't hold my attention very long. The other ones are just not my style of game (except maybe tales of Symphonia, but I haven't played it yet). The PS2 has a much better range of selection, specifically a lot of good RPGs that the GC totally lacks.
You're right, the main CPU can execute vector instructions, but there is only a scalar pipeline on the main CPU. The PS2 has faster memory than the gamecube, though. It's memory bandwidth is 3.2GB/sec, vs 2.6GB/sec for the gamecube.
Slashdot Mirror
Lot's of people have made OSs without C. There is nothing about C that makes it particularly suitable to writing an OS.
I don't give a shit what the games look like. I'm not a gamer! I'm am only pointing out that it is inaccurate to say that the GC is faster than the PS2.
Also, Nintendo *does* list maximum theoretical numbers in their SDK docs. The GC can push a max of about 32M polygons per second, with no texturing and simple shading. This is much lower than the ~60M polygons per second the PS2 can push under the same circumstances.
I couldn't care less. I'm not a gamer, and I don't own a PS2 (indeed, I own a gamecube). However, it's inaccurate to say that the GC is more powerful.
The games look different than on the Gamecube. Most Gamecube games have lot's of special effects, bright colors, nicely filtered textures, etc. However, their models are relatively low polygon count. The PS2 tends to have very high-detail models, but with lower image quality. Personally, I prefer the high-detail look of the PS2.
Also, you have to consider that even though the PS2 is more powerful, it's a lot harder to program. The PS1 had games that looked much better than what you found on the Saturn, but the Saturn was significantly more powerful.
And the PS2 has practically no textruing capabilities,
It's got twice the textured fill rate of the Gamecube.
as well as a mere 8 MB of VRAM to work with.
Actually, it's 4MB of VRAM, but that's compared to the gamecube's 1MB of VRAM. It also runs at 48GB/sec compared to the gamecube's 10.4GB/sec.
The gamecube's architecture allows it to get more "free" special effects, but the PS2 has much more raw power.
The Gamecube hardware is on average as powerful as the X-Box, being better in some aspects and weaker in others. It's also almost universally better than the PS2.
Are you insane? The PS2 has faster main memory bandwidth, *way* more graphics memory bandwidth, much more vector processing capability, four times as many graphics pipelines, etc.
:: picks chin off floor ::
/hides under bed
Who thinks, that if the shoe were on the other foot, it's these same people that would be on TV, beheading innocent captives?
A society has a right to govern moral law and try and limit the accessibility of corrupting information.
No they don't.
Quite a few (younger)left wing people I know seem to be more interested in dissent than in the actual issues.
On the other hand, a lot of right wing people *I* know seem to be more interested indulging their knee-jerk fear of gays, foreigners, etc, than with the actual political tenents (fiscal responsibility, civil society, etc), of the American right-wing.
Both sides have a contingent that they are ashamed off (or ought to be ashamed off). It seems to me, however, that the crazy protesters are at least not in control of the left, but that the reactionaries are firmly in control of the right. How else do explain the fact that the current Republican platform is largely at odds with conservative principles, while the current Democratic platform is largely consistent with liberal principles? How do you explain a supposedly conservative President that passed hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare programs?
Look at the number of people who would rather blow whistles at an anti-war rally than write letters to their Senators and Representatives.
I think it's important to remember that Senators and Representatives are beholden to public opinion. We have (almost) no true statesmen left in Congress. They will not do anything that could incite a strong public reaction. Hence you have liberals (who supposedly care about civil liberties), vote almost unanimously in favor of something like USA PATRIOT. The goal of protesting is not so much to convince legislators, but to have some visceral impact on the people.
I think it is an unfortunate, but unavoidable fact of reality that emotional spectacles have more of an effect on the public than intellectual arguments. I saw Fahrenheit 911, and even though I agree with the basic ideas of the movie, I detested the way those ideas were presented. However, Fahrenheit 911 seemed to have a lot more impact on the people than all the logical arguments posed by the anti-war people ever did.
It is becuase they do not want to be on the same side as a bunch of hysterical "No Blood for Oil" protestors.
I don't know about that. I remember rightist protestors (and major rightist talking heads), saying after 9/11 how America deserved it because of feminists and gays. Would people rather be on the same side as those nut-jobs?
The iPod has dual With regards to the iPod, it's got dual 90MHz processors (not 166 as I originally said). They're not 300MHz processors, but they aren't exactly insubstantial.
With regards to the minidisc player, yes it has much less to do than a PSP, but the big point of contention here is the cost of the optical disc. The minidisc player shows that the optical disc doesn't take nearly as much power as people think it does.
With regards to the PSP's battery life, Sony has not said anything about the estimated time for games being 2 hours. They gave only a single 6-10 hour number, and did not specify whether it was for games or what. Rumors on the internet range from 2 hours for games, to 8 hours for games.
The fact that they didn't design the system in a way to allow for backwards compatibility is their own fault.
Backwards compatibility with what? You think Sony can make it compatible with GBA games without getting their ass sued by Nintendo?
Ugh, my last comment got clipped due to bad HTML. With regards to your point (1):
I'd point out that Sony minidisc players get 40+ hours on a single AA. I'd also point out that the dual-300MHz processors on the PSP aren't that far from the dual 166MHz processors on the iPod. The PSP will probably have worse battery life than the DS, but for playing the same sorts of games as the DS, I don't think it'll be that huge a difference.
1) I'll belive when I see it. Nintendo already has a portable that can easily get 8 hours of battery life and Sony is using a disc-based system.2) One word: Internet
How useful is the internet on such a tiny screen? When are you in a position to have a wifi AP nearby, but not in a position to get to a terminal? In any case, the PSP has 802.11b too, although I don't think it'll be very useful.
4) Personally, I couldn't care less. Many people will see this feature as a good thing, though.
MP3 support will make the PSP very nice for those who'd otherwise have to carry a gameboy + an iPod. 1.8GB minidiscs will be able to hold a decent amount of music. In any case, my comment about the MP3s was directed at the fact that the OP claimed that Sony would lock you into proprietory formats.
I don't know how much that disk is going to add to the battery life. I've got a minidisc player that's a couple of years old, and it get's close to 40 hours of battery life on a single AA battery. I'm sure the PSP's drive is even more power-efficient.
1) With regards to battery life Sony's projected batterly life is the same as Nintendo's --- 6-10 hours. Both will fall short, probably by an equal amount.
2) Wireless multiplayer doesn't seem very useful to me. First, it'll kill battery life. Second, can you think of a situation where you're in the position to play a game multiplayer, but need to use wireless? I mean, I can imagine playing in the car or something with a friend, but you don't need wireless for that. Most people will probably just use a link-cable anyway, to save on battery.
3) With regards to backwards compatibility, backwards compatibility with what? Full-size PS1 CDs???
4) Sony has announced that the PSP will support MP3s.
More or less the same is true of GNOME and KDE apps too. The major shortcuts (including the ones you mentioned) are the same.
In any case, the title of this thread is "too many toolkits." Obviously, that is not the case, relative to the other popular desktop operating system. Standards between apps is a seperate issue.
So where are you getting the GC's max polygons/sec number? The only numbers officialy released, that I know of, are the ones touted for in-game numbers, not for max theoretical polygons/sec.
According to IGN the 33M number is from the official documentation, for single-textured triangles.
And, BTW, the PS2 can't come anywhere near 20M polygons/sec in-game, unless there are very few light sources, no physics, no Z-buffering, no gouraud shading, etc.
The SDK shows 30M gouraud shaded, textured, fogged pixels per second. Depending on the size of your triangles, you should be able to do z-buffered and alpha-blending triangles at this rate. The Myriad engine achives 17M polygons/second in the real game, with 33M polygons per second for pre-lit landscape.
Dude. It's not our job to keep them employed. Both the UK and the United States are free countries. I can do what I want in my free time. If that's bad for them, well, though luck, that's how free markets work.
Then you better recall those thousands of desktops across the organization that are running Windows. Because on your average desktop, you've got a *minimum* of three toolkits (.NET, Office & Luna), and four look & feels (.NET, Office, Luna, Media Player).
applications having the same look-n-feel on Mac OS or Windows,
.NET toolkit. Note the flat buttons and .NET combobox.
In what alternate reality? Windows, in particular, is completely schizo. You've got so many toolkits:
Office XP toolkit. Note the lack of Luna-style buttons.
The Visio toolkit. Note the freaky blue gradient toolbars.
The
Windows Media Player 10 theme.
And here's Luna. Note the distinctive Luna-style buttons and tabbar.
Now, this doesn't count any non-Microsoft apps! Yes, all this schizo-osity is from a single company! Throw iTunes in there, or ephpod, or musicmatch, or AOL (all common apps), and you get even more schizo-osity. Just having GTK+ and Qt is looking pretty good right now, isn't it?
Eh, the only games I liked on that list are Metriod Prime and Mario Sunshine. Even those couldn't hold my attention very long. The other ones are just not my style of game (except maybe tales of Symphonia, but I haven't played it yet). The PS2 has a much better range of selection, specifically a lot of good RPGs that the GC totally lacks.
I don't get it.
You're right, the main CPU can execute vector instructions, but there is only a scalar pipeline on the main CPU. The PS2 has faster memory than the gamecube, though. It's memory bandwidth is 3.2GB/sec, vs 2.6GB/sec for the gamecube.
What the hell does this have to do with which console has more powerful?
What do DVDs have anything to do with anything?