Although I'm an atheist, I agree with you, "If our President feels obligated to live within a moral standard of 'not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc', because of his religion, then so much the better." That is exactly why nobody should vote for George W. Bush.
The American president who lived by that code more than any other is, beyond a reasonable doubt, Jimmy Carter.
That may be true if you drive everywhere and consider programming your TIVO for Buffy exercise. However, a lot of people don't think that walking, jogging, biking or working out are a form of torture. They are a good way to get around, stay in shape and enjoy life.
The fastest Itanium chip right now is 800 Mhz. A lot of people have been railing (correctly) against Mhz vs. Mhz comparisons, but in this case, it isn't even necessary. Itanium is not the same as a P2/P3/P4. It is a totally different architecture, and its clock speed currently tops out at 800 Mhz, not 1.7 Ghz like the P4.
I was a computers science major at a small liberal arts college, so I am skewed towards believing that understanding the theory of data & algorithms should be the subject of intro courses. Given that, I definitely don't think that assembly is a good starting language (as some people have suggested). It also makes me think that performance of the generated code is a HORRIBLE way to judge teaching languages. Based on those arguments, I don't think that JAVA is a bad programming language for intro courses at all.
However, I do think that JAVA is a bad intro course, based on my experience. During my senior year at Macalester (my college) I was a student aide for second semester CS course. The course had previously been taught in C++, but was taught in JAVA the year I was a student aide. The first semester course was taught in Scheme (a good choice IMHO). The major problem that I ran into when helping students with JAVA is that it isn't a pure OO language. It is a hybrid language: both procedural and OO. That seemed to be the real sticking point. Of course C++ is even more of a bastard language than JAVA is, so that doesn't make it a better choice.
I think that a good choice is any pure programming language. Scheme is an (almost) pure functional language. C and Pascal are pure procedural languages. Smalltalk is a pure OO language. I think that those languages are good choices, except for maybe C. I think that an intro course should concentrate on theory, not segfaults. We get to spend the rest of our lives hunting those down.
How exactly is it that you know what the TurboLinux strategy is? You don't sound terribly informed. I work at TurboLinux, and I can't divulge what our system management strategy is, but it certainly has nothing to do with re-packaging software that we already make freely available.
If you have an axe to grind, then grind away, but please only do so if you know what you're talking about.
> It's a goddamn PC for christsakes. There's no difference.
These aren't standard PC's any more than alphas are. There is a massive difference. The instruction set, and the whole architecture is different. As somebody said previously, this is the first real change to the processor line that intel has made since the 386, an this is probably a bigger change than that is. I'm sorry but your comment comes off sounding a lot like an ignorant rant.
> while not suffering from the constraint in manufacturing
Sorry, but these things are definitely not coming off of the same fab line as any ia32 processors. They are _very_ different.
>Again though, if you want your 32 bit apps to run, you'll have to run them in >SLOOOOW software emulation. Unless, of course you pay even MORE $$$ so >intel can set a jumper somewhere and enable the built-in hardware emulation.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you ever used an ia64 box? If not, then what basis do you have to make these claims? I've never had to set a jumper on an ia64 box to make it run 32bit netscape. Maybe somebody did it for me, but I suspect that you just don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore, as you may be aware most of the software that ships with a Linux distro is open source, so you don't have to run the 32 bit version. You either recompile on ia64 or let your distro do it for you.
Sure, plenty of people write sloppy C code that pays no attention to the difference between pointers & ints (hint: they aren't the same size on every platform). However, this sort of thing will cause problems on other 64 bit platforms, too. If you buy a copy of TurboLinux 6.1 Workstation (cough, plug, cough, sorry...) you will see that it ships with an ia64 distro with all of the functionality (pretty much) of the ia32 version, and then some.
The instructions are talking about RPM groups, not directories. This should be fairly obvious, given that there is generally no/Applications/Internet directory.
Speaking of arrogant, uninformed rants... But The Emotion engine cannot be compared with a CPU, it's only a graphics processor.
The Emotion Engine is the main processor, not the graphics processors for the PS2. The PS2 also has a separate graphics processor called the "Graphics Synthesizer", which is about 3 or 4 times as fast as a GeForce DDR.
Nvidia have themselves already said that the X-box GPU will be several times more powerful than the PS2. So while the PS2 is doomed always to run the Emotion Engine, by the time the L600 appears it will have a GPU between four to ten times as powerful as the PS2's in terms of sheer triangle output and fill rate, and with a few new tricks as well
I'm sorry, but this comment is really stupid. A current generation graphics card in the PC (A GeForce DDR) costs about $300 and draws about 20 million triangles per second. The complete PS2 (not just a graphics card) will probably cost about $300 at launch and draws about 66 million triangles per second. Yes, NVIDIA did say that the GPU in the X-Box will be several times faster than the PS2's chip. However, they also said that it is 2 or 3 generations beyond their current crop of chips. So, no, the chip in this dealy will not be "4 to 10 times" as fast as the PS2.
The best example is this. One the same hardware, current N64 games whoop what was available at its introduction. What PCs can do that?
The PC's of next fall.
Did you even read what he said? The PC's of next fall?! What exact technological revolution is it that is going to make these magical PCs never need to be upgraded? The point is that games on the same console get better as time passes because developers have more experience with the console. It isn't a moving target like the PC. Your response is that new PCs will be more like the Nintendo 64?
This [shutdown issues]*might* be a danger (though not so much as with the MS X-box).... If the "off" button does a soft shutdown (something like a properly working ACPI suspend-to-disk), then the slate is regularly wiped clean and this risk will be minimal.
Kids play on consoles. Kids and dogs unplug them. A soft power-down switch won't cut it. By the way, I love Linux, but pull the plug on a Linux box and an NT box while you are playing quake and doing some other stuff in the background and tell me which fsck'n system reacts better.
This product isn't a good idea. If it wasn't running Linux, I don't think that anybody would even notice it. Here is why:
1. They say that it has a 600 Mhz processor, but don't mention what kind it is. Any Slashdot read worth their salt should know that listing the clock speed of a processor and nothing else is like listing a motor's RPMs and nothing else; It doesn't mean anything useful. The only reason that they say this is because the X-Box has a processor running at the same speed.
2. It has a hard drive. I know that the X-box also has one, but I don't like that either. I own a computer. In fact, I own 6. If I want to have to manage hard drive space and fsck's, then I'll use a computer. If I want to play q3a, then I'll use a computer. If I want to play Mario, then I'll use my Nintendo, and I won't worry about having an optional hard drive upgrade. I guess what I'm saying is:
3. If I want to play computer games, I'll play them on a computer. Why would I buy a separate machine to play games on? OK, I did, but it is just another computer, which I also use for development and such. If I want to play console games, I'll play them on a console. The web site offers nothing to make me believe that this isn't a computer with a different case and TV out.
4. The graphics chip isn't announced. If you play games, you know that this makes the entire announcement virtually meaningless. The most important factor in a game machine's ability is the graphics card. A PII-233 with a GeForce DDR would smoke a PIII-1000 with an S3 virge in just about any game. The (already mentioned) fact that they didn't even mention the type of processor makes this announcement totally meaningless.
5. It has an OS, and it is Linux. I love Linux. I want more games for Linux. However, having an OS isn't really that good for a console, IMHO. The Dreamcast has a port of WinCE, and nobody uses it. This is because it really isn't useful. A full blow OS, like Win2K (X-box) or Linux (this thing) is very bad in the context of console games. A protected memory, paged memory, multi-tasking, mult-threaded, multi-user, OS is very slow. It cuts the performance of a machine at least in half. The Dreamcast has a 200 MHz processor, which is probably on par with a PII 400 (if I remember correctly) in terms of FPU horsepower, and a graphics chip which is a bit more powerful than a voodoo 2. In spite of this, games like Soul Calibur look much better than anything available on a PC with a PIII 600 and a TNT2 ultra. It doesn't waste CPU time on context switches, memory security and other things that are critical on a multi-user, multi-processing system.
Personally, I'm waiting on a "Next-Next Generation" console until the PS2 comes out, and maybe even until it has some games. I could be wrong, but I don't think this thing will even tempt me as much as the X-box.
I sort of wonder if this is a real apple page. Look at the real apple homepage. Look at the OS X aqua interface. Look at an iMac. All of them are pure eye candy. This page is boring and unprofesional. It had a spelling error(so do my possts, but they aren't supposed to be profesional), and it appeared to be a bit inaccurate.
Believe me, I love my PCs(Homemade and/or cannablized). I love PC games. I want a GeForce DDR in a big way. However, I still want a PSX2. First, because I know some of the best games will be exclusive to it, or because the PC ports will suck (see FFVII & FFVIII). You're using some fallacious logic in your argument here. First, you say:
What driving sim requires something aprox 3x more powerful than a GeForce 256 DDR (as the other replier mentioned)? What fighter?
If you are just talking about gameplay, then you are correct. Everything could just be made up of flat-colored geometric objects. However, people generally like games to look good. Thus, the existence of totally useless, but pretty, things, such as colored lighting and curved surfaces. Further, prettiness is the very reason for the existence of the high-end PC graphics boards you talked about. So, this leads me to believe that you may mean that graphics couldn't possibly look better than they do on a modern gaming PC. Viewing any of the movies available on the web that show the PSX2 in action should dispel this idea. However, even without these movies, it isn't hard to imagine game graphics looking better than they do in modern PC games. Just go watch Toy Story 2. Single frames of animation in a movie like that can take hours, if not days, to render on clusters of expensive workstations. Hardware has a long way to go before that sort of thing can be done in realtime.
As for your argument that the PSX2 will be overpriced, I seriosly disagree. Upon shipping in the US, it will probably cost $300, and certainly no more than $400. A Geforce DDR alone costs about $300, and that doesn't include a processor, main memory, sound hardware, etc. A system that could claim to be even 1/3 as powerful as a PSX2 would probably cost $2500. Further, assuming the PSX2 does play DVDs, which it sounds like it will, it won't cost much more than a standard DVD player, which clearly has a lot less features.
Finally, on the issue of re-couping losses through games, this is nothing new. Nintendo did this with the N64, and the games were over-priced, but primarily because of the cost of manufacturing cartridges. Anyone can make DVDs, and just because Sony tries to re-coup its losses on game sales, doesn't mean that 3rd party manufacturers will need to.
You are right in saying that it will make a poor computer, because it doesn't allow you to save anything. Other than that, your comments are totally uninformed and incorrect. A) Sorry, even a GeForce DDR is nowhere near as powerful, in terms of polygonal complexity as the hardware in the PSX2. A TNT2 isn't even comparable.
TNT2 polys/sec ~ 15 million GeForce polys/sec ~ 20 million PS2 polys/sec ~ 60 million
B) The resolution of the PSX2 isn't really that low. It will only be 640x480 on a standard TV, because that is all that a standard TV can display. However, the resolution that it uses internally is much higher, something like 1440x1024, or something like that. It downsamples for a TV disply. On the other hand, I believe that it will have the ability to display higher resolutions on an HDTV if you have one. I'm not sure about that, but I think so.
C) How the hell is it a Chimera? It may look a bit chimeric, because it will probably play cds and dvds, but the playstation plays cds, and I don't know anyone who calls it a chimera. Just because CNN (or whoever) says that it has the power of a PC, doesn't mean that it is really like one at all. It isn't even shipping with a modem. It is a gaming machine, and one that inspite of your assertions, will blow any current pc out of the water, in terms of gaming power.
Do you seriously think that we have reached the ultimate plateau of graphics excellence, and there is nothing more to achieve? These boards aren't designed for playing Quake II at 800x600, they are designed for Quake III and other yet to be relased games. Current PC games still don't compare to the quality of demos for the PSX2, which itself isn't on par with the quality of movie effects or animation (eg, A Bug's Life, The Phantom Menace). Faster is still definitely better; the only question is whether 3Dfx is making there cards fast the right way.
A guy wrote a version of glDoom, but he didn't open-source or distribute the source. His hard-drive failed and the project was over.(After Mr. Carmack spent a decent amount of time helping him with it.)
All of this is true, but if you think it means that the PS2 is only on par with a TNT2 or something equivalent, you are wrong. You can't just apply all of those divisions to the PS2's theoretical maximum. The Voodoo3 and TNT2 are around 8 or 9 million polys per second, but this is also a theoretical maximum, which by your math puts them at about 1 million polys per second in real-world conditions, which is still 1/8th the speed of the PS2.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I'm an atheist, I agree with you, "If our President feels obligated to live within a moral standard of 'not lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, etc', because of his religion, then so much the better." That is exactly why nobody should vote for George W. Bush.
The American president who lived by that code more than any other is, beyond a reasonable doubt, Jimmy Carter.
Have you played Metroid Prime yet?
Congratulations! I hope this last sentence makes it original.
That may be true if you drive everywhere and consider programming your TIVO for Buffy exercise. However, a lot of people don't think that walking, jogging, biking or working out are a form of torture. They are a good way to get around, stay in shape and enjoy life.
Panasonic is making a gamecube compatible DVD player. The gamecube costs much less and takes up less space than either unit.
Given the content of your post, I assume that "older than 12" means 13, or maybe 12 1/2. Grow up.
The fastest Itanium chip right now is 800 Mhz. A lot of people have been railing (correctly) against Mhz vs. Mhz comparisons, but in this case, it isn't even necessary. Itanium is not the same as a P2/P3/P4. It is a totally different architecture, and its clock speed currently tops out at 800 Mhz, not 1.7 Ghz like the P4.
I was a computers science major at a small liberal arts college, so I am skewed towards believing that understanding the theory of data & algorithms should be the subject of intro courses. Given that, I definitely don't think that assembly is a good starting language (as some people have suggested). It also makes me think that performance of the generated code is a HORRIBLE way to judge teaching languages. Based on those arguments, I don't think that JAVA is a bad programming language for intro courses at all.
However, I do think that JAVA is a bad intro course, based on my experience. During my senior year at Macalester (my college) I was a student aide for second semester CS course. The course had previously been taught in C++, but was taught in JAVA the year I was a student aide. The first semester course was taught in Scheme (a good choice IMHO). The major problem that I ran into when helping students with JAVA is that it isn't a pure OO language. It is a hybrid language: both procedural and OO. That seemed to be the real sticking point. Of course C++ is even more of a bastard language than JAVA is, so that doesn't make it a better choice.
I think that a good choice is any pure programming language. Scheme is an (almost) pure functional language. C and Pascal are pure procedural languages. Smalltalk is a pure OO language. I think that those languages are good choices, except for maybe C. I think that an intro course should concentrate on theory, not segfaults. We get to spend the rest of our lives hunting those down.
How exactly is it that you know what the TurboLinux strategy is? You don't sound terribly informed. I work at TurboLinux, and I can't divulge what our system management strategy is, but it certainly has nothing to do with re-packaging software that we already make freely available. If you have an axe to grind, then grind away, but please only do so if you know what you're talking about.
> It's a goddamn PC for christsakes. There's no difference.
These aren't standard PC's any more than alphas are. There is a massive difference. The instruction set, and the whole architecture is different. As somebody said previously, this is the first real change to the processor line that intel has made since the 386, an this is probably a bigger change than that is. I'm sorry but your comment comes off sounding a lot like an ignorant rant.
> while not suffering from the constraint in manufacturing
Sorry, but these things are definitely not coming off of the same fab line as any ia32 processors. They are _very_ different.
>Again though, if you want your 32 bit apps to run, you'll have to run them in >SLOOOOW software emulation. Unless, of course you pay even MORE $$$ so >intel can set a jumper somewhere and enable the built-in hardware emulation.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you ever used an ia64 box? If not, then what basis do you have to make these claims? I've never had to set a jumper on an ia64 box to make it run 32bit netscape. Maybe somebody did it for me, but I suspect that you just don't know what you are talking about. Furthermore, as you may be aware most of the software that ships with a Linux distro is open source, so you don't have to run the 32 bit version. You either recompile on ia64 or let your distro do it for you.
Sure, plenty of people write sloppy C code that pays no attention to the difference between pointers & ints (hint: they aren't the same size on every platform). However, this sort of thing will cause problems on other 64 bit platforms, too. If you buy a copy of TurboLinux 6.1 Workstation (cough, plug, cough, sorry...) you will see that it ships with an ia64 distro with all of the functionality (pretty much) of the ia32 version, and then some.
The instructions are talking about RPM groups, not directories. This should be fairly obvious, given that there is generally no /Applications/Internet directory.
TurboLinux already has an Itanium port, and it was out well before RedHat's.
Apple sues developers for implementing a stripped down version of mpeg compression? I don't particularly think that will happen.
Speaking of arrogant, uninformed rants...
... If the "off" button does a soft shutdown (something like a properly working ACPI suspend-to-disk), then the slate is regularly wiped clean and this risk will be minimal.
But The Emotion engine cannot be compared with a CPU, it's only a graphics processor.
The Emotion Engine is the main processor, not the graphics processors for the PS2. The PS2 also has a separate graphics processor called the "Graphics Synthesizer", which is about 3 or 4 times as fast as a GeForce DDR.
Nvidia have themselves already said that the X-box GPU will be several times more powerful than the PS2. So while the PS2 is doomed always to run the Emotion Engine, by the time the L600 appears it will have a GPU between four to ten times as powerful as the PS2's in terms of sheer triangle output and fill rate, and with a few new tricks as well
I'm sorry, but this comment is really stupid. A current generation graphics card in the PC (A GeForce DDR) costs about $300 and draws about 20 million triangles per second. The complete PS2 (not just a graphics card) will probably cost about $300 at launch and draws about 66 million triangles per second. Yes, NVIDIA did say that the GPU in the X-Box will be several times faster than the PS2's chip. However, they also said that it is 2 or 3 generations beyond their current crop of chips. So, no, the chip in this dealy will not be "4 to 10 times" as fast as the PS2.
The best example is this. One the same hardware, current N64 games whoop what was available at its introduction. What PCs can do that?
The PC's of next fall.
Did you even read what he said? The PC's of next fall?! What exact technological revolution is it that is going to make these magical PCs never need to be upgraded? The point is that games on the same console get better as time passes because developers have more experience with the console. It isn't a moving target like the PC. Your response is that new PCs will be more like the Nintendo 64?
This [shutdown issues]*might* be a danger (though not so much as with the MS X-box).
Kids play on consoles. Kids and dogs unplug them. A soft power-down switch won't cut it. By the way, I love Linux, but pull the plug on a Linux box and an NT box while you are playing quake and doing some other stuff in the background and tell me which fsck'n system reacts better.
This product isn't a good idea. If it wasn't running Linux, I don't think that anybody would even notice it. Here is why:
1. They say that it has a 600 Mhz processor, but don't mention what kind it is. Any Slashdot read worth their salt should know that listing the clock speed of a processor and nothing else is like listing a motor's RPMs and nothing else; It doesn't mean anything useful. The only reason that they say this is because the X-Box has a processor running at the same speed.
2. It has a hard drive. I know that the X-box also has one, but I don't like that either. I own a computer. In fact, I own 6. If I want to have to manage hard drive space and fsck's, then I'll use a computer. If I want to play q3a, then I'll use a computer. If I want to play Mario, then I'll use my Nintendo, and I won't worry about having an optional hard drive upgrade. I guess what I'm saying is:
3. If I want to play computer games, I'll play them on a computer. Why would I buy a separate machine to play games on? OK, I did, but it is just another computer, which I also use for development and such. If I want to play console games, I'll play them on a console. The web site offers nothing to make me believe that this isn't a computer with a different case and TV out.
4. The graphics chip isn't announced. If you play games, you know that this makes the entire announcement virtually meaningless. The most important factor in a game machine's ability is the graphics card. A PII-233 with a GeForce DDR would smoke a PIII-1000 with an S3 virge in just about any game. The (already mentioned) fact that they didn't even mention the type of processor makes this announcement totally meaningless.
5. It has an OS, and it is Linux. I love Linux. I want more games for Linux. However, having an OS isn't really that good for a console, IMHO. The Dreamcast has a port of WinCE, and nobody uses it. This is because it really isn't useful. A full blow OS, like Win2K (X-box) or Linux (this thing) is very bad in the context of console games. A protected memory, paged memory, multi-tasking, mult-threaded, multi-user, OS is very slow. It cuts the performance of a machine at least in half. The Dreamcast has a 200 MHz processor, which is probably on par with a PII 400 (if I remember correctly) in terms of FPU horsepower, and a graphics chip which is a bit more powerful than a voodoo 2. In spite of this, games like Soul Calibur look much better than anything available on a PC with a PIII 600 and a TNT2 ultra. It doesn't waste CPU time on context switches, memory security and other things that are critical on a multi-user, multi-processing system.
Personally, I'm waiting on a "Next-Next Generation" console until the PS2 comes out, and maybe even until it has some games. I could be wrong, but I don't think this thing will even tempt me as much as the X-box.
No. I think they meant DVDs.
Thank you, Mr. Nietzche. Not that I disagree.
I sort of wonder if this is a real apple page. Look at the real apple homepage. Look at the OS X aqua interface. Look at an iMac. All of them are pure eye candy. This page is boring and unprofesional. It had a spelling error(so do my possts, but they aren't supposed to be profesional), and it appeared to be a bit inaccurate.
Believe me, I love my PCs(Homemade and/or cannablized). I love PC games. I want a GeForce DDR in a big way. However, I still want a PSX2. First, because I know some of the best games will be exclusive to it, or because the PC ports will suck (see FFVII & FFVIII). You're using some fallacious logic in your argument here. First, you say:
What driving sim requires something aprox 3x more powerful than a GeForce 256 DDR (as the other replier mentioned)? What fighter?
If you are just talking about gameplay, then you are correct. Everything could just be made up of flat-colored geometric objects. However, people generally like games to look good. Thus, the existence of totally useless, but pretty, things, such as colored lighting and curved surfaces. Further, prettiness is the very reason for the existence of the high-end PC graphics boards you talked about. So, this leads me to believe that you may mean that graphics couldn't possibly look better than they do on a modern gaming PC. Viewing any of the movies available on the web that show the PSX2 in action should dispel this idea. However, even without these movies, it isn't hard to imagine game graphics looking better than they do in modern PC games. Just go watch Toy Story 2. Single frames of animation in a movie like that can take hours, if not days, to render on clusters of expensive workstations. Hardware has a long way to go before that sort of thing can be done in realtime.As for your argument that the PSX2 will be overpriced, I seriosly disagree. Upon shipping in the US, it will probably cost $300, and certainly no more than $400. A Geforce DDR alone costs about $300, and that doesn't include a processor, main memory, sound hardware, etc. A system that could claim to be even 1/3 as powerful as a PSX2 would probably cost $2500. Further, assuming the PSX2 does play DVDs, which it sounds like it will, it won't cost much more than a standard DVD player, which clearly has a lot less features.
Finally, on the issue of re-couping losses through games, this is nothing new. Nintendo did this with the N64, and the games were over-priced, but primarily because of the cost of manufacturing cartridges. Anyone can make DVDs, and just because Sony tries to re-coup its losses on game sales, doesn't mean that 3rd party manufacturers will need to.
You are right in saying that it will make a poor computer, because it doesn't allow you to save anything. Other than that, your comments are totally uninformed and incorrect. A) Sorry, even a GeForce DDR is nowhere near as powerful, in terms of polygonal complexity as the hardware in the PSX2. A TNT2 isn't even comparable.
TNT2 polys/sec ~ 15 million
GeForce polys/sec ~ 20 million
PS2 polys/sec ~ 60 million
B) The resolution of the PSX2 isn't really that low. It will only be 640x480 on a standard TV, because that is all that a standard TV can display. However, the resolution that it uses internally is much higher, something like 1440x1024, or something like that. It downsamples for a TV disply. On the other hand, I believe that it will have the ability to display higher resolutions on an HDTV if you have one. I'm not sure about that, but I think so.
C) How the hell is it a Chimera? It may look a bit chimeric, because it will probably play cds and dvds, but the playstation plays cds, and I don't know anyone who calls it a chimera. Just because CNN (or whoever) says that it has the power of a PC, doesn't mean that it is really like one at all. It isn't even shipping with a modem. It is a gaming machine, and one that inspite of your assertions, will blow any current pc out of the water, in terms of gaming power.
Do you seriously think that we have reached the ultimate plateau of graphics excellence, and there is nothing more to achieve? These boards aren't designed for playing Quake II at 800x600, they are designed for Quake III and other yet to be relased games. Current PC games still don't compare to the quality of demos for the PSX2, which itself isn't on par with the quality of movie effects or animation (eg, A Bug's Life, The Phantom Menace). Faster is still definitely better; the only question is whether 3Dfx is making there cards fast the right way.
A guy wrote a version of glDoom, but he didn't open-source or distribute the source. His hard-drive failed and the project was over.(After Mr. Carmack spent a decent amount of time helping him with it.)
All of this is true, but if you think it means that the PS2 is only on par with a TNT2 or something equivalent, you are wrong. You can't just apply all of those divisions to the PS2's theoretical maximum. The Voodoo3 and TNT2 are around 8 or 9 million polys per second, but this is also a theoretical maximum, which by your math puts them at about 1 million polys per second in real-world conditions, which is still 1/8th the speed of the PS2.
Are you high? I know, I'll make an SGI Onyx2 emulator for my Apple ][ e!
Is it maybe possible to be fit and "technolically savvy" and healthy? Personally, I'd rather not have a technologically savvy coronary failure.