I know very little about the subject, but what I've heard is that robotic bipedal locomotion is so difficult that there is a smaller leap in sophistication between wheeled vehicles and six legs (always a tripod on the ground like an ant) than between six legs and two.
You mean your amphibious Aston Martin? The one with a button hidden in the gearshift that when pressed releases sharks with laser beams attached to their heads?
Yeah, it going to be cool to read the speedometer right off the windshield, or cooler yet, to see the name of your favorite beer dance around the lip of a pint glass.
Entirely true. They haven't done that here though. Basic illumination is the only thing these panels will do. That's why the parent poster noted the superior efficiency of what's used today.
I may be mistaking an expansion for a rebuttal...
on
GE Reaches OLED Milestone
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
but I don't see how your observation detracts from the parent posters point. Unless the "light box" (I don't know the technical term) that converts the cylindrical CCFL source into one big flat 2D source via diffusion is incredibly lossy you're still dealing with the efficiency of the source itself. LCDs are light shutters. Their emissive efficiency depends on the source of white light. The advantage of tacking light emissive wallpaper on the back of an LCD would lie in its relative simplicity, lighter weight, lack of a high volta ge inverter/ballast, and thinner depth. Until OLED bulb-paper can match the power efficiency of the current design it offers no advantage whatsoever. 6 L/W wont cut it just because it's flat. You'll either get 1/10th the brightness or 1/10 the battery life.
I would certainly appreciate an accelerated framebuffer driver for NVidia cards. If you've ever used radeonfb or matroxfb you'll find the vesa driver pretty lacking.
I didn't know that Matox changed it's ways so dramatically. Why would they do such a thing? Do they really think Parhelia is going to compete with RV3xx and NV3x in the minds of those who want those chips? If so, why wouldn't continuing to distinguish themselves with open drivers and specs lend them a mark of distinction? It's sad. Excepting 3D acceleration, their cards have excellent features and the Linux drivers -- both framebuffer and X -- were rock solid and complete. I wish the new ATI could be fused with the old Matrox.
NVidia really blew it with NV30. Part of the aftermath is that they've flooded the market with an insane number of variations and revisions in their product line. As far as I can tell any FX series card with a number lower than 5700 is going to suck ass completely. The price point where you get the most performance for your dollar is with the 5900XT -- that's a no brainer. Anything less and the money saved won't be worth the performance loss. Anything more and you're shelling out big bucks for a small increase in core/mem clock speed that you might achive anyway with nvclock or the coolbits.reg hack.
As far as the dual dvi goes... that's another black mark on this generation of NVidia cards. For some reason -- maybe because NVidia has revamped and rereleased NV3x too much -- dual dvi isn't really hitting the market. IIRC, one GeForce 4 manufacturer put dual dvi on all its Ti cards, but the only non-sucky FX series card I've noticed with dual dvi is a 5700. You might consider trying to find an older 4600 or 4800/4600-8x with dual dvi. After the 5700 Ultra NVidia went to a 256 bit memory bus and the bandwidth gave the line a nice bump in performance. The difference between the 5700U and an 5900XT is greater than the difference between a 5700U and a 4600 so if you can find a deal on one it might be worth waiting for the next generation.
I can empathise with your disappointment. I recently bought a 9600XT to replace my 64MB Ti4200. I had to hook it up to my CRT, because the ATI card's DVI port can't handle VESA type negotiation (or however it works) with my particular LCD -- so no POST display or bios screens, etc... ATI's support page indicates that they know this has been a problem for quite some time and their stock response according the discussions found in forums and their support page is to blame hardware misconfiguration and suggest disabling USB in the BIOS. I don't know enough about what happens in the boot process before a single sector of your hard disk is loaded into memory to understand how a USB device could interfere with the way a graphic card configures itself at power on, but I do know that between Matrox, NVidia, and ATI, the ATI cards are the only with the problem and it isn't limited to my hardware or the 9600XT.
That being the case I couldn't resist pushing forward with the card to see how much fun gaming would be with something that isn't outdated (and was "bottom of the line" in it's class at the time I bought it!) so I get the drivers from ATI's site. They're only available in RPM format. That's idiotic as makeself archives can include RPM's functionality for those who need it while maintaining distro agnosticism. After running alien on it to get at the goodies I find a serious lack of documentation. Unless I fubared the conversion somehow these things don't even have so much as README. I install the libs and utility programs and go to build the module. There isn't any makefile! They've written two shell scripts to build the module and what's worse is that the scripts won't work if the sources aren't installed under/lib/modules! Why?!! Who decided that!
I got it up and running with accelerated 3D but the custom glxgears program written for ATI hardware wouldn't run and performance wasn't dramatically superior to my measly 4200. In fact, in some ways it wasn't any better. I really wanted an RV3xx to work for me, but until ATI can get it together with everything surrounding the solid tech they put into the latest Radeons I'm going back to NVidia.
Well, you've hit a strange subject that touches nether regions of the psyche there. To me, Siamese twins aren't nearly as "disgusting" as this creature, though one lower body with two torsos might come close. There's something about nature's mistakes when they happen at this level of sophistication -- between plant and mammal -- that hit me right in the creepy zone. As soon as I clicked the tab on the BBC story I clicked away before I could really grasp what this abomination looks like. There's a chthonic, nauseating, freakazation about it I don't want to sleep on. Yikes.
Any chance that that a VNC link could make that dedicated gaming box seem like an... emulator board?! I'd be surprised to find such a thing viable, but it sure would be nice to just shove the FPSs on to a matx nForce2 with GigE. Anyone tried this? Just a thought...
What are you talking about and why should you be pissed off? You actually want Carmack to code to a proprietary API? He writes against `GL because he prefers it's cross-platform nature. There's nothing DX offers that he can't get from GL and shaders are small programs in their own right -- not something whose functionality is generically exposed by DX alone.
OK. So I don't have the hardware or proof of concept experience to give a hands down solution to this problem but the very nature of VLC's design is to address this concept. It is a Video Lan Client designed to handle streaming video media and it handles DVD menus just like totem, mplayer, and xine. (In fact totem might be a player here too as it taps gstreamer). I don't recall enough about how VLC cleaves the client/server split to comment on the efficacy of DVD menu browsing over a network, but if you (presumably) want to seggregate the video archive from the box that's going to handle the display it's a no-brainer. What really needs to be looked at is what can be used as a wrapper around browsing the whole collection the way one might hack up something with lirc, links/lynx, and mserv, etc... Pardon, the ramble. I make it a point to get trashed on Tuesdays. But, yeah. Hack up a way to browse the library with a remote and the rest is cake.
Yeah, I know. Your hyperbole inspired my inner smart-ass.
XFree 4.4
Good timing. I had just finished posting a response in this thread and happened to mention that, like others, I don't fully understand the flap over XFree86's new license and on the face of it wouldn't throw my 2 cents in on the GPL side ('though I wouldn't mind if their move inspired a fork that made the point mute). I would like to point out though that if the issue between the two camps on the matter can only be framed in binary, either/or terms then XFree86 is making itself incompatible with the GPL just as much as the GPL is making itself incompatible with XFree86. The argument is then as solvable, resolvable, and edifying as whether toilet seats should be left up or down.
People that write software under the BSD license don't care who uses it for what. They enjoyed writing something; they may think it's pretty good; and by extension, they may think lots of people can benefit from it.
Why then do so many fans of BSD-like licensing feel the need to denounce the GPL as having malignant characteristics in the process of stating their preference?
Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ?
How would that be different from them using GPL software?
wouldn't that help standards compliance ? Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ?
Maybe. Then again BSD licensed software might be the best code base to start with if you want your "value added" product to "embrace and extend".
or is your argument basically "screw companies"?
Why must the GPL imply the notion of "screwing" companies?
The BSD license is about writing good software.
In as much as a license can affect code quality I don't understand what the BSD process entails that the GPL process can't encompass.
The GPL license is about anti-corporatism.
I don't see how that could be true given the number of companies that have invested resources in GPL software like Linux. That includes the obvious commercial distributions as well as big industry names like IBM and Novel. Even hardware companies like Intel have put finacial muscle into the GPL's economic ecology. Debian -- the distro that packages what it calls "GNU/Linux" and has a "debian-legal" mailing list -- had a founder who now owns a company called Progeny.
Understand, I myself have nothing against the BSD license. I have yet to fully understand the recent clamor surrounding XFree86's new license. (I'm sure I must be missing something, but on the face of it all I can say is whoop-de-freaking-do. So they want credit? What's wrong with that? Does that really mean every other package's documentation will need retooling? If so could that actually be as cumbersome as dealing with Imake?) I just don't get this whole pissing contest. At times the debate as advanced by the BSD over GPL contingent seems to stem from an unspoken my-gift-is-purer-than-yours vanity. It reminds me of the JPF vs the PFJ in "Life of Brian".
Slashdot Mirror
I know very little about the subject, but what I've heard is that robotic bipedal locomotion is so difficult that there is a smaller leap in sophistication between wheeled vehicles and six legs (always a tripod on the ground like an ant) than between six legs and two.
Urge to cringe overridden by... resentment of sucker punch.
Theoretically, OLED displays could also have a color gamut that covers what every other display technology can't.
You mean your amphibious Aston Martin? The one with a button hidden in the gearshift that when pressed releases sharks with laser beams attached to their heads?
Yeah, it going to be cool to read the speedometer right off the windshield, or cooler yet, to see the name of your favorite beer dance around the lip of a pint glass.
Entirely true. They haven't done that here though. Basic illumination is the only thing these panels will do. That's why the parent poster noted the superior efficiency of what's used today.
but I don't see how your observation detracts from the parent posters point. Unless the "light box" (I don't know the technical term) that converts the cylindrical CCFL source into one big flat 2D source via diffusion is incredibly lossy you're still dealing with the efficiency of the source itself. LCDs are light shutters. Their emissive efficiency depends on the source of white light. The advantage of tacking light emissive wallpaper on the back of an LCD would lie in its relative simplicity, lighter weight, lack of a high volta ge inverter/ballast, and thinner depth. Until OLED bulb-paper can match the power efficiency of the current design it offers no advantage whatsoever. 6 L/W wont cut it just because it's flat. You'll either get 1/10th the brightness or 1/10 the battery life.
Find some nude photos of Catherine Zeta-Jones -- preferably with a little muff involved.
I would certainly appreciate an accelerated framebuffer driver for NVidia cards. If you've ever used radeonfb or matroxfb you'll find the vesa driver pretty lacking.
I didn't know that Matox changed it's ways so dramatically. Why would they do such a thing? Do they really think Parhelia is going to compete with RV3xx and NV3x in the minds of those who want those chips? If so, why wouldn't continuing to distinguish themselves with open drivers and specs lend them a mark of distinction? It's sad. Excepting 3D acceleration, their cards have excellent features and the Linux drivers -- both framebuffer and X -- were rock solid and complete. I wish the new ATI could be fused with the old Matrox.
As far as the dual dvi goes... that's another black mark on this generation of NVidia cards. For some reason -- maybe because NVidia has revamped and rereleased NV3x too much -- dual dvi isn't really hitting the market. IIRC, one GeForce 4 manufacturer put dual dvi on all its Ti cards, but the only non-sucky FX series card I've noticed with dual dvi is a 5700. You might consider trying to find an older 4600 or 4800/4600-8x with dual dvi. After the 5700 Ultra NVidia went to a 256 bit memory bus and the bandwidth gave the line a nice bump in performance. The difference between the 5700U and an 5900XT is greater than the difference between a 5700U and a 4600 so if you can find a deal on one it might be worth waiting for the next generation.
That being the case I couldn't resist pushing forward with the card to see how much fun gaming would be with something that isn't outdated (and was "bottom of the line" in it's class at the time I bought it!) so I get the drivers from ATI's site. They're only available in RPM format. That's idiotic as makeself archives can include RPM's functionality for those who need it while maintaining distro agnosticism. After running alien on it to get at the goodies I find a serious lack of documentation. Unless I fubared the conversion somehow these things don't even have so much as README. I install the libs and utility programs and go to build the module. There isn't any makefile! They've written two shell scripts to build the module and what's worse is that the scripts won't work if the sources aren't installed under /lib/modules! Why?!! Who decided that!
I got it up and running with accelerated 3D but the custom glxgears program written for ATI hardware wouldn't run and performance wasn't dramatically superior to my measly 4200. In fact, in some ways it wasn't any better. I really wanted an RV3xx to work for me, but until ATI can get it together with everything surrounding the solid tech they put into the latest Radeons I'm going back to NVidia.
Well, you've hit a strange subject that touches nether regions of the psyche there. To me, Siamese twins aren't nearly as "disgusting" as this creature, though one lower body with two torsos might come close. There's something about nature's mistakes when they happen at this level of sophistication -- between plant and mammal -- that hit me right in the creepy zone. As soon as I clicked the tab on the BBC story I clicked away before I could really grasp what this abomination looks like. There's a chthonic, nauseating, freakazation about it I don't want to sleep on. Yikes.
You Sir, truly are... a "Concept Junkie".
What is Q3's "PVS"?
Any chance that that a VNC link could make that dedicated gaming box seem like an... emulator board?! I'd be surprised to find such a thing viable, but it sure would be nice to just shove the FPSs on to a matx nForce2 with GigE. Anyone tried this? Just a thought...
What are you talking about and why should you be pissed off? You actually want Carmack to code to a proprietary API? He writes against `GL because he prefers it's cross-platform nature. There's nothing DX offers that he can't get from GL and shaders are small programs in their own right -- not something whose functionality is generically exposed by DX alone.
Is that true now? IIRC, Carmack developed Q3 on NT4.
Check out `pentium-builder'.
That is mostly a study of prelinking which is done on installed binaries. Compilation flags have little to do there.
OK. So I don't have the hardware or proof of concept experience to give a hands down solution to this problem but the very nature of VLC's design is to address this concept. It is a Video Lan Client designed to handle streaming video media and it handles DVD menus just like totem, mplayer, and xine. (In fact totem might be a player here too as it taps gstreamer). I don't recall enough about how VLC cleaves the client/server split to comment on the efficacy of DVD menu browsing over a network, but if you (presumably) want to seggregate the video archive from the box that's going to handle the display it's a no-brainer. What really needs to be looked at is what can be used as a wrapper around browsing the whole collection the way one might hack up something with lirc, links/lynx, and mserv, etc... Pardon, the ramble. I make it a point to get trashed on Tuesdays. But, yeah. Hack up a way to browse the library with a remote and the rest is cake.
You mean, like `apt-get install dvdbackup' so you end up with the 32k binary (on ppc at least) that can put a VIDEO_TS folder on your hard drive?
Uhh, you mean like if you wanted to create a styrofoam Mr. and Mrs. Frankenstein?
Yeah, I know. Your hyperbole inspired my inner smart-ass.
XFree 4.4
Good timing. I had just finished posting a response in this thread and happened to mention that, like others, I don't fully understand the flap over XFree86's new license and on the face of it wouldn't throw my 2 cents in on the GPL side ('though I wouldn't mind if their move inspired a fork that made the point mute). I would like to point out though that if the issue between the two camps on the matter can only be framed in binary, either/or terms then XFree86 is making itself incompatible with the GPL just as much as the GPL is making itself incompatible with XFree86. The argument is then as solvable, resolvable, and edifying as whether toilet seats should be left up or down.
Why then do so many fans of BSD-like licensing feel the need to denounce the GPL as having malignant characteristics in the process of stating their preference?
Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ?
How would that be different from them using GPL software?
wouldn't that help standards compliance ? Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ?
Maybe. Then again BSD licensed software might be the best code base to start with if you want your "value added" product to "embrace and extend".
or is your argument basically "screw companies"?
Why must the GPL imply the notion of "screwing" companies?
The BSD license is about writing good software.
In as much as a license can affect code quality I don't understand what the BSD process entails that the GPL process can't encompass.
The GPL license is about anti-corporatism.
I don't see how that could be true given the number of companies that have invested resources in GPL software like Linux. That includes the obvious commercial distributions as well as big industry names like IBM and Novel. Even hardware companies like Intel have put finacial muscle into the GPL's economic ecology. Debian -- the distro that packages what it calls "GNU/Linux" and has a "debian-legal" mailing list -- had a founder who now owns a company called Progeny.
Understand, I myself have nothing against the BSD license. I have yet to fully understand the recent clamor surrounding XFree86's new license. (I'm sure I must be missing something, but on the face of it all I can say is whoop-de-freaking-do. So they want credit? What's wrong with that? Does that really mean every other package's documentation will need retooling? If so could that actually be as cumbersome as dealing with Imake?) I just don't get this whole pissing contest. At times the debate as advanced by the BSD over GPL contingent seems to stem from an unspoken my-gift-is-purer-than-yours vanity. It reminds me of the JPF vs the PFJ in "Life of Brian".