Well, my guess is they could do transparent cases. (Heat dissapation is primarily through heat sinks, not the plastic.) However, it's probably irrelavent.
Production has stopped on Athlon classics, and the new Athlons should be hitting the streets next month. All but the first few of those will be in socket packages, rather than these Slot A packages. So, as of next month, the big plastic case will be gone. (Their moving to sockets because the cache is moving on-die, so the Slot A package isn't needed any more.)
Now all we need is for someone to write an open source checkbook register for Palm Pilots that can sync with GnuCash, and all the paper records can go away.:)
What are the science funding views of the various presidential candidates? I think it's clear that Gore is a science advocate. I honestly haven't heard a science policy comment from any of the candidates (including Gore) during the campaign, and I have been following the races and debates rather closely.
For all of you reporters out there, could you please write some stories on this? For the senators (former and current) who are running, what are their voting records on scientific and engineering matters? (I'm not interested in, "So-and-so wants a moratorium on net taxes." We've heard tons about the net, computers, and health care policy (which isn't science), but we've heard very little about pure science and the like.)
Here are a few questions I'd love to hear at a debate:
What is, in your view, the most exciting scientific discovery of the last few years? (*)
Do you keep abreast of current scientific research? What magazines/web pages/etc. do you scan through to see what's currently going on. (I'm not exactly sure how to word this. I don't expect them to read the Physical Review,:) but I'd like to know that they occasionally read the Science Section of the New York Times, or Scientific American or Discover.)
Where do you see the American space program in ten years?
Those are the sorts of questions I'd love to see asked. I don't expect them to be an expert at any subject, I'd just like to know that they are interested in the scientific and engineering progress of the country, and that they have some rough picture, at least, of where the nation is headed.
Anyway, I'd love to hear any information people have on the candidates' views on science.
John Karcz
(*) If Bush says, "I discovered Jesus," I won't be terribly surprised.:)
Heh. I've fired off the same sorts of post, too... I hope I didn't come across as a flame, I just wanted to get my point out.
Well, yeah, my statements about Congress and the president were somewhat wishful thinking. If we get lucky, maybe some of them will trip across those statements and get flattered into spending more money on science.:)
There are quite a few cases where Congress has really shown that it pays attention to science, though. The example on the top of my head is from when the Republicans took over the House in the early nineties. (1994, right?) Anyway, the freshmen Republicans went about slashing and burning as much government spending as they could, under the assumption that all government spending was wasted money. They tried to gut science funding as well.
However, if I remember correctly, the elder statesmen of both parties pulled them aside, and filled them in on how important science funding is, in economic, defence, and social value. I don't remember how well they fared, and if they succeeded in preventing a lot of the cuts. (I was in college at the time, and didn't get to follow the details of the debate.) Previous to that, though, I had assumed Congress had very little interest in science. I believe now that they are at least keeping an eye on scientific progress.
I'm glad to see the president talking about science funding, and wish the presidential candidates would, too. I fully intend on holding my representatives responsible for their votes and actions related to science.
The previous poster's example about mapping the solar system was poor, but so is your analysis about which science is the most productive to invest in.
You can't simply claim that one is "the best bang for the buck," since they're all intertwined!:)
Astrophysics and astronomy advance science (and technology) on multiple fronts, too. Astrophysics involves basically all aspects of "pure" physics: High energy physics, condensed matter physics, plasma physics, etc. etc, with the possible exception (so far:) of biophysics. The various branches of chemistry are employed, and materials science and nanotechnology are developed by NASA for astronomical exploration, too.
I agree that nanotechnology must be heavily studied, too. I also see, though, that nano investment is a field much more prone to heavy private funding, in addition to government funding, since there is so much perceived short term gain.
However, there's no reason for us to quibble about such things, because no science (or technological endeavor) should have to fight for funding with any other. We should all be funded to the hilt.:)
I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences.
(Sorry for the double post... I accidentally posted as an AC.)
Russ Nelson is absolutely correct. I mentioned the same argument against internet voting, too, when the internet voting issue came up some time last year.
Forget the technological issues. Assume they are perfectly resolved.
There is no way to assure that the voter isn't being coerced into casting a certain vote.
There is a reason that we use curtained voting booths and poll watchers. It is to prevent these social means of altering votes, rather than to prevent technical ones.
I understand why some people think internet voting is a great way to revolutionize democracy. I felt the same thing for a long time, too. Do not let the apparent elegance of voting from your home computer cloud your judgement, though... internet voting from the home is inherently flawed.
Before continuing, I should comment on absentee ballots. There is an outward similarity between absentee ballots and internet ballots, and I can not recall a big case where absentee ballots were coerced. Let me simply say that the absence of a documented attack exploiting a given security hole does not mean that the hole does not exist!
Actually, I am personally against mail in absentee ballots, too, since they may also be coerced. It probably hasn't become a problem because, in general, absentee ballots are only a small fraction of the votes case it most elections. (I believe one or two states have recently allowed wide spread mail-in voting, though.)
While I am opposed to voting over the net from home, I am not opposed to voting over the net from public polling places. In fact, if the polling places were wired to each other, it might allow a voter registered in Florida to vote from a booth in New Hampshire, removing some of the need for absentee ballots as an added bonus. This, I believe, is an excellent use of technology in voting.
The social issues surrounding voting can not (as far as I can see) be addressed by any implementation of internet voting from home. Internet voting is a dangerous idea. Please don't let your local legislatures implement it.
With polling booths, the privacy of the voter is assured. You may say either yes or no if someone asks, "Did you vote for Johnson?" and they'll never know whether you were lying or not.
If you vote from home, they may intimidate or convince you into allowing them to monitor your vote. The simple act of keeping them out of your home could cause some people to act out against you.
The government must ensure privacy during the act of voting, and that privacy must not be optional.
Reading through all of the comments in this discussion, I didn't notice any mention of the obvious reason against internet voting. (Excuse me if someone did mention it, and I missed it.)
It is simply this: When I vote using the current methods, I vote in a small, private booth, and my privacy is mandated and ensured. If I were to vote over the internet, no matter how secure the connection, someone could look over my shoulder.
This is one of the most grave possible sources of election fraud.
If someone can watch your vote, they can bribe you and be assured that you will actually vote in the agreed way. They can threaten you, and rough you up if you don't vote in the demanded way.
Absentee ballots suffer from the same insecurity, but fortunately they are usually a trivial fraction of the total ballots cast. Personally, I believe that absentee ballots should either be cast securely from ballot booths in other states, or with several trusted and qualified witnesses swearing that the vote was private. The security hole probably doesn't matter much for absentee ballots, since there are so few, but I think it would be huge in internet voting.
I think this issue alone is enough to rule out internet voting.
... reducing astronomical data often can't be sped up by throwing more processors at the job. The Seti system is a case where the data reduction is straight forward, so it can be distributed easily. However, an astronomer often has to make adjustments to the data analysis process by hand, for each target or each set of targets, depending on the observing conditions and what you'd like to know about the target.
Perhaps the sort of data their getting from all their targets is similar, and can be reduced using the same method. Perhaps, though, their looking for different things from different targets, so a general enough distributed method that is convenient for the astronomer is difficult to design.
I'm glad people would like to participate in distributed data reduction and scientific computing. I think it's a heck of a lot more useful to society that cracking one of an infinite set of code keys.:) I'm sure scientists will start to ask for your help more and more over the next few years... and maybe, depending on the methods involved, this will be one of next distributed projects.
I have to apologize to Roblimo. I flamed him too quickly.:) I've exchanged email messages with him, and I from what I learned I think he's a very good addition to Slashdot.
I guess I wasn't clear. I agree with raising the caps. I was just trying to refute Roblimo's comment that removing the caps entirely would make no difference.
John
(Sorry about the repost. Like an idiot, I accidently hit submit instead of preview.)
I guess I wasn't clear. I don't mean to say we should keep the current caps. I was just trying to refute Roblimo's comment that removing the caps would make no difference.
While multiple groups package and distribute Linux, the software in each distibution are varying versions of the same programs. The latest distributions from each distributor might be hard to distinguish to the untrained eye. (Although I doubt there are any untrained eyes reading this.:)
Microsoft's most recent batch of operating system offerings, however, is horribly fragmented. Windows 98, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 (beta) (which a number of people already use.) There's (I believe) a separate source tree for WinNT for DEC Alphas. Soon we will have 64 and 32 bit versions of some of these on the streets at the same time. There are big incompatabilites between these systems, as I'm sure some gamers learned the hard way when using NT.
(To be fair, I'm leaving out the heavily-in-use Win 3.1 and Win 95, and only looking at current versions.)
With Linux, one pile of source gets you 32 or 64 bits, workstation and server, on PowerPC, Alpha, Pentium, and more.
I doubt we have any real fragmentation worries. I cannot comprehend why Microsoft's Ed Muth continually tries to foist this as an argument against Linux... he should step up an look at his own operating system, for a moment.
> The dumb thing here is that almost anyone, > almost anywhere, can put together a Beowulf > network out of commodity PCs. I mean, computer > export controls are obsolete, so why bother > with them at all?
Simply because Beowulf clusters are nowhere not nearly the fastest computers built, when it comes to the sort of tasks we'd like to prevent some foriegn government from partaking. Beowulf clusters may be sweet for Monte Carlo codes and the like, but for a big simulation of an explosion, I'll take a 1024 processor Origin 2000 any day of the week.:)
The inter-processor communications speed of Beowulf are not high enough to efficiently sync up the boundary conditions between fluid elements in the simulation.
(Granted, Beowulf machines can be made useful for these sorts of tasks, but you can't simply scale a code like this up by chucking a few more K7s or PIIs onto the system, beyond a certain limit. A real supercomputer, like an Origin, will let you utilize new processors more effectively.)
Now, if SGI is serious about make Linux handle ccNuma, we might eventually be able to scale to those sizes.
Btw, sorry for the flame, but who is this Robilimo guy? Maybe I'm being too rough, but his comments always seem flaky to me. Oh well, I guess I can shut his stories off.:)
While taking two nanorobots and having them build a nanoconstruction crew and then a space cruiseliner is sweet idea and all, I'm not holding my breath.:)
I suspect we are going to go back much sooner than that, for very practical reasons.
Constellations of communcication satellites are up and down linking huge amounts of data at wavelengths at or near those radio astronomers need to observe at. Since the number and bandwidth of these constellations is not going to go down, radio astronomers are going to become more and more blind.
I suspect, then, that the next people to walk on the Moon will be radio astronomers. They will tend radio telescopes on the other side, using the Moon as a shield to block all of the stray interference from Earth.
It's just a thought, but it seems to be the way things are going, especially given the amount that launch cost are expected to plummet over the next few years.
... is that it wasn't a strong de-orbit burn, but rather a strong initial burn. That would have put Prospector into an orbit slightly higher than predicted. The de-orbit burn could then be adjusted, to aim at the same spot from a slightly different angle than was previously planned.
Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Surveyor 98, Ulysses, DS1, DS2, NEAR, Chandra, Compton Gamma Ray observatory, Cassini, Mars Polar Lander, Stardust.
Those are some of the NASA missions that have taken or are taking huge amounts of data this decade, which informed members of the public have probably heard of. NASA also funds quite a bit of ground based, good-old-fashioned astronomy and astrophysics.
> Outside of Hubble and John Glenn, NASA has > done little to forward the exploration of > space in the last ten years anyway.
You have obviously not checked your facts before blindly firing of this statement.
Some people have voiced opposition to this cloning because the reintroduction of these birds to the wild may cause problems. Do their predators and prey still exist? Is their ecosystem in general still intact?
I say, forget about their ecosystem. Forget the idea of reintroduction all together! Who cares, when all I want is a white-tipped black feather farm!:)
John
Re:XFree86 could be a little more open
on
XFree86 News
·
· Score: 1
> Has anyone ever actually been turned down?
Yep. Well, maybe not turned down, but certainly not replied to. A year or two ago, I sent a message to their main address volunteering to help with the Matrox driver, and never heard a peep back.
Yes, the G400 is quite a bit faster than TNT2 or Voodoo3, at 32b color depth and high resolutions. At lower resolutions, it doesn't do as well as those cards.
But if you can play Q3 smoothly at 1280x1024, why go back to 800x600?:)
My reference is the recent Q3T benchmarks of various video cards by Id. The original data can be found at Id, and here's some analysis done at Shugashack. (I don't completely agree with their analysis, but I might be confused about an issue or two. Like all analysis on the web, use it as background, but make up your own mind when you have the data. The G400 is definately damn fast on high res, high quality settings, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
We may not use gasoline heaters in our homes, but we definitely use natural gas. That is often far cheaper than using grid electric power.
Production has stopped on Athlon classics, and the new Athlons should be hitting the streets next month. All but the first few of those will be in socket packages, rather than these Slot A packages. So, as of next month, the big plastic case will be gone. (Their moving to sockets because the cache is moving on-die, so the Slot A package isn't needed any more.)
John
Now all we need is for someone to write an open source checkbook register for Palm Pilots that can sync with GnuCash, and all the paper records can go away. :)
John
Contrary to what the poster would have you believe, this is not a surprise, and has been anticipated for quite some time.
Even ABC News has reported on this in the middle of last year... I've only looked up one reference . I've read about this for years.
The Chinese also test launched an unmanned spacecraft late last year.
They're ready to fly, and it's no surprise.
John
For all of you reporters out there, could you please write some stories on this? For the senators (former and current) who are running, what are their voting records on scientific and engineering matters? (I'm not interested in, "So-and-so wants a moratorium on net taxes." We've heard tons about the net, computers, and health care policy (which isn't science), but we've heard very little about pure science and the like.)
Here are a few questions I'd love to hear at a debate:
Those are the sorts of questions I'd love to see asked. I don't expect them to be an expert at any subject, I'd just like to know that they are interested in the scientific and engineering progress of the country, and that they have some rough picture, at least, of where the nation is headed.
Anyway, I'd love to hear any information people have on the candidates' views on science.
John Karcz
(*) If Bush says, "I discovered Jesus," I won't be terribly surprised.
Heh. I've fired off the same sorts of post, too... I hope I didn't come across as a flame, I just wanted to get my point out.
:)
Well, yeah, my statements about Congress and the president were somewhat wishful thinking. If we get lucky, maybe some of them will trip across those statements and get flattered into spending more money on science.
There are quite a few cases where Congress has really shown that it pays attention to science, though. The example on the top of my head is from when the Republicans took over the House in the early nineties. (1994, right?) Anyway, the freshmen Republicans went about slashing and burning as much government spending as they could, under the assumption that all government spending was wasted money. They tried to gut science funding as well.
However, if I remember correctly, the elder statesmen of both parties pulled them aside, and filled them in on how important science funding is, in economic, defence, and social value. I don't remember how well they fared, and if they succeeded in preventing a lot of the cuts. (I was in college at the time, and didn't get to follow the details of the debate.) Previous to that, though, I had assumed Congress had very little interest in science. I believe now that they are at least keeping an eye on scientific progress.
I'm glad to see the president talking about science funding, and wish the presidential candidates would, too. I fully intend on holding my representatives responsible for their votes and actions related to science.
John Karcz
The previous poster's example about mapping the solar system was poor, but so is your analysis about which science is the most productive to invest in.
:)
:) of biophysics. The various branches of chemistry are employed, and materials science and nanotechnology are developed by NASA for astronomical exploration, too.
:)
You can't simply claim that one is "the best bang for the buck," since they're all intertwined!
Astrophysics and astronomy advance science (and technology) on multiple fronts, too. Astrophysics involves basically all aspects of "pure" physics: High energy physics, condensed matter physics, plasma physics, etc. etc, with the possible exception (so far
I agree that nanotechnology must be heavily studied, too. I also see, though, that nano investment is a field much more prone to heavy private funding, in addition to government funding, since there is so much perceived short term gain.
However, there's no reason for us to quibble about such things, because no science (or technological endeavor) should have to fight for funding with any other. We should all be funded to the hilt.
I think the president and Congress both understand how good of an investment science is, and that the effort has to be spread around to advance the state of the art on as many fronts as possible.
I think that they also are very aware that the country will receive economic and spriritual returns commensurate with whatever level of funding they they provide for the sciences.
(Sorry for the double post... I accidentally posted as an AC.)
Russ Nelson is absolutely correct. I mentioned the same argument against internet voting, too, when the internet voting issue came up some time last year.
Forget the technological issues. Assume they are perfectly resolved.
There is no way to assure that the voter isn't being coerced into casting a certain vote.
There is a reason that we use curtained voting booths and poll watchers. It is to prevent these social means of altering votes, rather than to prevent technical ones.
I understand why some people think internet voting is a great way to revolutionize democracy. I felt the same thing for a long time, too. Do not let the apparent elegance of voting from your home computer cloud your judgement, though... internet voting from the home is inherently flawed.
Before continuing, I should comment on absentee ballots. There is an outward similarity between absentee ballots and internet ballots, and I can not recall a big case where absentee ballots were coerced. Let me simply say that the absence of a documented attack exploiting a given security hole does not mean that the hole does not exist!
Actually, I am personally against mail in absentee ballots, too, since they may also be coerced. It probably hasn't become a problem because, in general, absentee ballots are only a small fraction of the votes case it most elections. (I believe one or two states have recently allowed wide spread mail-in voting, though.)
While I am opposed to voting over the net from home, I am not opposed to voting over the net from public polling places. In fact, if the polling places were wired to each other, it might allow a voter registered in Florida to vote from a booth in New Hampshire, removing some of the need for absentee ballots as an added bonus. This, I believe, is an excellent use of technology in voting.
The social issues surrounding voting can not (as far as I can see) be addressed by any implementation of internet voting from home. Internet voting is a dangerous idea. Please don't let your local legislatures implement it.
John Karcz
With polling booths, the privacy of the voter is assured. You may say either yes or no if someone asks, "Did you vote for Johnson?" and they'll never know whether you were lying or not.
If you vote from home, they may intimidate or convince you into allowing them to monitor your vote. The simple act of keeping them out of your home could cause some people to act out against you.
The government must ensure privacy during the act of voting, and that privacy must not be optional.
John Karcz
Reading through all of the comments in this discussion, I didn't notice any mention of the obvious reason against internet voting. (Excuse me if someone did mention it, and I missed it.)
It is simply this: When I vote using the current methods, I vote in a small, private booth, and my privacy is mandated and ensured. If I were to vote over the internet, no matter how secure the connection, someone could look over my shoulder.
This is one of the most grave possible sources of election fraud.
If someone can watch your vote, they can bribe you and be assured that you will actually vote in the agreed way. They can threaten you, and rough you up if you don't vote in the demanded way.
Absentee ballots suffer from the same insecurity, but fortunately they are usually a trivial fraction of the total ballots cast. Personally, I believe that absentee ballots should either be cast securely from ballot booths in other states, or with several trusted and qualified witnesses swearing that the vote was private. The security hole probably doesn't matter much for absentee ballots, since there are so few, but I think it would be huge in internet voting.
I think this issue alone is enough to rule out internet voting.
John Karcz
... reducing astronomical data often can't be sped up by throwing more processors at the job. The Seti system is a case where the data reduction is straight forward, so it can be distributed easily. However, an astronomer often has to make adjustments to the data analysis process by hand, for each target or each set of targets, depending on the observing conditions and what you'd like to know about the target.
:) I'm sure scientists will start to ask for your help more and more over the next few years... and maybe, depending on the methods involved, this will be one of next distributed projects.
Perhaps the sort of data their getting from all their targets is similar, and can be reduced using the same method. Perhaps, though, their looking for different things from different targets, so a general enough distributed method that is convenient for the astronomer is difficult to design.
I'm glad people would like to participate in distributed data reduction and scientific computing. I think it's a heck of a lot more useful to society that cracking one of an infinite set of code keys.
Hope this sheds some light on things!
John
-
I have to apologize to Roblimo. I flamed him too quickly.
Sorry Roblimo!
John
I guess I wasn't clear. I agree with raising the caps. I was just trying to refute Roblimo's comment that removing the caps entirely would make no difference.
John
(Sorry about the repost. Like an idiot, I accidently hit submit instead of preview.)
I guess I wasn't clear. I don't mean to say we should keep the current caps. I was just trying to refute Roblimo's comment that removing the caps would make no difference.
John
While multiple groups package and distribute Linux, the software in each distibution are varying versions of the same programs. The latest distributions from each distributor might be hard to distinguish to the untrained eye. (Although I doubt there are any untrained eyes reading this. :)
Microsoft's most recent batch of operating system offerings, however, is horribly fragmented. Windows 98, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 (beta) (which a number of people already use.) There's (I believe) a separate source tree for WinNT for DEC Alphas. Soon we will have 64 and 32 bit versions of some of these on the streets at the same time. There are big incompatabilites between these systems, as I'm sure some gamers learned the hard way when using NT.
(To be fair, I'm leaving out the heavily-in-use Win 3.1 and Win 95, and only looking at current versions.)
With Linux, one pile of source gets you 32 or 64 bits, workstation and server, on PowerPC, Alpha, Pentium, and more.
I doubt we have any real fragmentation worries. I cannot comprehend why Microsoft's Ed Muth continually tries to foist this as an argument against Linux... he should step up an look at his own operating system, for a moment.
> The dumb thing here is that almost anyone,
:)
:)
> almost anywhere, can put together a Beowulf
> network out of commodity PCs. I mean, computer
> export controls are obsolete, so why bother
> with them at all?
Simply because Beowulf clusters are nowhere not nearly the fastest computers built, when it comes to the sort of tasks we'd like to prevent some foriegn government from partaking. Beowulf clusters may be sweet for Monte Carlo codes and the like, but for a big simulation of an explosion, I'll take a 1024 processor Origin 2000 any day of the week.
The inter-processor communications speed of Beowulf are not high enough to efficiently sync up the boundary conditions between fluid elements in the simulation.
(Granted, Beowulf machines can be made useful for these sorts of tasks, but you can't simply scale a code like this up by chucking a few more K7s or PIIs onto the system, beyond a certain limit. A real supercomputer, like an Origin, will let you utilize new processors more effectively.)
Now, if SGI is serious about make Linux handle ccNuma, we might eventually be able to scale to those sizes.
Btw, sorry for the flame, but who is this Robilimo guy? Maybe I'm being too rough, but his comments always seem flaky to me. Oh well, I guess I can shut his stories off.
While taking two nanorobots and having them build a nanoconstruction crew and then a space cruiseliner is sweet idea and all, I'm not holding my breath. :)
I suspect we are going to go back much sooner than that, for very practical reasons.
Constellations of communcication satellites are up and down linking huge amounts of data at wavelengths at or near those radio astronomers need to observe at. Since the number and bandwidth of these constellations is not going to go down, radio astronomers are going to become more and more blind.
I suspect, then, that the next people to walk on the Moon will be radio astronomers. They will tend radio telescopes on the other side, using the Moon as a shield to block all of the stray interference from Earth.
It's just a thought, but it seems to be the way things are going, especially given the amount that launch cost are expected to plummet over the next few years.
John
... is that it wasn't a strong de-orbit burn, but rather a strong initial burn. That would have put Prospector into an orbit slightly higher than predicted. The de-orbit burn could then be adjusted, to aim at the same spot from a slightly different angle than was previously planned.
John
Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Surveyor 98, Ulysses, DS1, DS2, NEAR, Chandra, Compton Gamma Ray observatory, Cassini, Mars Polar Lander, Stardust.
Those are some of the NASA missions that have taken or are taking huge amounts of data this decade, which informed members of the public have probably heard of. NASA also funds quite a bit of ground based, good-old-fashioned astronomy and astrophysics.
> Outside of Hubble and John Glenn, NASA has
> done little to forward the exploration of
> space in the last ten years anyway.
You have obviously not checked your facts before blindly firing of this statement.
John
Some people have voiced opposition to this cloning because the reintroduction of these birds to the wild may cause problems. Do their predators and prey still exist? Is their ecosystem in general still intact?
:)
I say, forget about their ecosystem. Forget the idea of reintroduction all together! Who cares, when all I want is a white-tipped black feather farm!
John
> Has anyone ever actually been turned down?
Yep. Well, maybe not turned down, but certainly not replied to. A year or two ago, I sent a message to their main address volunteering to help with the Matrox driver, and never heard a peep back.
John
It's rather hard to hide a rocket launch.
(btw, there were some Russian deaths on rentry,
but they are well documented.)
John
That's exactly the conclusion I came to, also.
:)
Let's see if we can make better drivers than they can.
John
Yes, the G400 is quite a bit faster than TNT2 or Voodoo3, at 32b color depth and high resolutions. At lower resolutions, it doesn't do as well as those cards.
:)
But if you can play Q3 smoothly at 1280x1024, why go back to 800x600?
My reference is the recent Q3T benchmarks of various video cards by Id. The original data can be found at Id, and here's some analysis done at Shugashack. (I don't completely agree with their analysis, but I might be confused about an issue or two. Like all analysis on the web, use it as background, but make up your own mind when you have the data. The G400 is definately damn fast on high res, high quality settings, though.)
John
thomas.loc.gov looks exactly like the site I was :)
looking for. How nice of Congress to provide it
for us.
John