Seems like Opera might be better fit for you? Helluva light (and I have also Arora installed here), quite a bit of features (so there's higher chance of "a program that has all the features I need and none I don't", while remaining light) and, well, it did supposedly have a "problem" with being too anal about invalid HTML; or at least that was often one of the reasons why it was a no-go to some, apparently.
That model isn't bad on desktops / laptops, either. The browser is becoming / has become(?) the main app many people use on their PCs. And possibly one of only two (the second being video editing) which can still greatly benefit from improvements in processing power or...attention to its performance during development.
I would hope we can prefer the second, less wasteful, solution.
Some places already seem to do so; places where a PC has typically much longer lifetime. Ukraine, where Opera is handily the #1 browser; Russia, where it's the #1 "alternative" one.
Try pushing it more - greater number of tabs (and Opera UI can sensibly work with them), much longer running time (why should I restart anything when I'm on mobile connection and there's hibernation?) - and you'll see how much lighter it is from others.
They have "obsession with the mobile branch" for over half a decade; and it didn't amount to much (other than "we'll just wait until the hardware is able to run our browser; in the meantime we'll just ignore that others can do it on a very limited hardware")
I'm not sure I will have a place at my disposal with the amount of space required; not that I would want to toy with proper screen/etc. for back projection...when there's really nothing wrong with front one?
Though, generally (throughout the world), such samples include people who are disproportionally more likely to serve justice to others (and who are, ultimatelly, chosen by the societies to do so)
That is to be expected relatively soon with two massive and rather close bodies orbiting each other, yes. But I guess it doesn't really translate that well to one heck of a n-body problem, where those bodies are also widely dispersed; I guess it would be already pointed out in "future of the Universe" lists, if it were the case.
That is good since it's just a splitter for video signal; takes very widescreen video from one output of whatever powerful card (or cards - SLI, et al) you like (out of those which can output such resolution; simply mutliply typical horizontal by 3) and displays it on three monitors. This new AMD multi-display tech is essentially the same thing, built into the card (but Matrox solution is vendor-agnostic and on the market for a few years already)
Also, Matrox wasn't a joke with 3D games from 1 decade ago.
Re:50 years, and still no portable death ray.
on
The Laser Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Don't presently best batteries have energy densities comparable to many explosives already?
There's plenty of network monitoring tools around.
Signal strenght might be harder if the manufacturer of the device doesn't give easy access to that data (many cellphones can be switched into diagnostic mode; or some smartphone OSes have diagnostic software available). Maybe you can find some electrosensitive person?
How come? Matrox is making a piece of equipment which allows for quite some time what AMD multi-display allows since recently. On all GFX cards, more or less.
I think that's mostly a matter of being used to them. Eiffel tower was once hideous, too.
Yes, you can probably find analogies between 737s and, say, many biological examples to which our sense of aesthetics surely adapted to (though some of them are predatory birds, very dangerous to our distant ancestors...). But it's not at all clear if 737s or this new concept is closer to them.
Even three low end 20 inch monitors will give a much higher resolution, and much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money spent on a single large display.
It makes perfect sense. Three 1920x1080 monitors (which are rather cheap nowadays) give you 6 megapixels. You can find single screens with around that amount of pixels...but they will be significantly more expensive, also "per pixel", than three cheap ones.
Yup; I wonder if those saying "this can't work" even tried it...
One day I will set up three projectors, should be even more fun (and no bezels!;) ). Maybe not that expensive, considering the periphery ones probably can do with worse parameters (resolution).
And the same is true with most common of apps that span several monitors - games; you head (camera) moves. Multimonitor with other apps usually works on the basis of "one window per monitor"/etc., so there's no issue as far as far as spanning & window managers are concerned.
Slashdot Mirror
Now remember that those engines want to run also on our mobile phones...
Seems like Opera might be better fit for you? Helluva light (and I have also Arora installed here), quite a bit of features (so there's higher chance of "a program that has all the features I need and none I don't", while remaining light) and, well, it did supposedly have a "problem" with being too anal about invalid HTML; or at least that was often one of the reasons why it was a no-go to some, apparently.
That model isn't bad on desktops / laptops, either. The browser is becoming / has become(?) the main app many people use on their PCs. And possibly one of only two (the second being video editing) which can still greatly benefit from improvements in processing power or...attention to its performance during development.
I would hope we can prefer the second, less wasteful, solution.
Some places already seem to do so; places where a PC has typically much longer lifetime. Ukraine, where Opera is handily the #1 browser; Russia, where it's the #1 "alternative" one.
That assumes there's not a waiting line of unknown, talented, and attractive actors...
Try pushing it more - greater number of tabs (and Opera UI can sensibly work with them), much longer running time (why should I restart anything when I'm on mobile connection and there's hibernation?) - and you'll see how much lighter it is from others.
They have "obsession with the mobile branch" for over half a decade; and it didn't amount to much (other than "we'll just wait until the hardware is able to run our browser; in the meantime we'll just ignore that others can do it on a very limited hardware")
I'm not sure I will have a place at my disposal with the amount of space required; not that I would want to toy with proper screen/etc. for back projection...when there's really nothing wrong with front one?
You mean how much the fact(?) that people expect from movies and TV shows to portray those who commit crimes as being ulgy?
Though, generally (throughout the world), such samples include people who are disproportionally more likely to serve justice to others (and who are, ultimatelly, chosen by the societies to do so)
Not likely, one Athlon XP 1700+ with 768 MiB of RAM, that I keep around here, got maybe a dozen workunits in the last month.
It seems now the project is gearing up specifically for calculations of later stage of LHC, when it will transfer to operating at greater power.
That is to be expected relatively soon with two massive and rather close bodies orbiting each other, yes. But I guess it doesn't really translate that well to one heck of a n-body problem, where those bodies are also widely dispersed; I guess it would be already pointed out in "future of the Universe" lists, if it were the case.
Of course it works, just on a slightly different level. Constant movements with mouselook. Scenery moving while you're "in" some vehicle.
But player's mind does; there's not much difference.
Or will you suddenly start to convince us that first person view & mouselook don't really feel right?
You just don't get it.
That is good since it's just a splitter for video signal; takes very widescreen video from one output of whatever powerful card (or cards - SLI, et al) you like (out of those which can output such resolution; simply mutliply typical horizontal by 3) and displays it on three monitors.
This new AMD multi-display tech is essentially the same thing, built into the card (but Matrox solution is vendor-agnostic and on the market for a few years already)
Also, Matrox wasn't a joke with 3D games from 1 decade ago.
Don't presently best batteries have energy densities comparable to many explosives already?
There's plenty of network monitoring tools around.
Signal strenght might be harder if the manufacturer of the device doesn't give easy access to that data (many cellphones can be switched into diagnostic mode; or some smartphone OSes have diagnostic software available). Maybe you can find some electrosensitive person?
How come? Matrox is making a piece of equipment which allows for quite some time what AMD multi-display allows since recently. On all GFX cards, more or less.
...it makes those specific cases of violence not bad...
How come? "Because I said so" or, most importantly, "because this is what I was led to believe" are not enough...
(we're taking here about those acts themselves, not circumstances, long term outcomes, etc.)
I think that's mostly a matter of being used to them. Eiffel tower was once hideous, too.
Yes, you can probably find analogies between 737s and, say, many biological examples to which our sense of aesthetics surely adapted to (though some of them are predatory birds, very dangerous to our distant ancestors...). But it's not at all clear if 737s or this new concept is closer to them.
Apparently you didn't understand. He said:
Even three low end 20 inch monitors will give a much higher resolution, and much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money spent on a single large display.
(emphasis mine)
It makes perfect sense. Three 1920x1080 monitors (which are rather cheap nowadays) give you 6 megapixels. You can find single screens with around that amount of pixels...but they will be significantly more expensive, also "per pixel", than three cheap ones.
Yup; I wonder if those saying "this can't work" even tried it...
One day I will set up three projectors, should be even more fun (and no bezels! ;) ). Maybe not that expensive, considering the periphery ones probably can do with worse parameters (resolution).
And the same is true with most common of apps that span several monitors - games; you head (camera) moves. Multimonitor with other apps usually works on the basis of "one window per monitor"/etc., so there's no issue as far as far as spanning & window managers are concerned.
World in Conflict can put a map of second monitor.
There is some number of games which do allow changing their field of view, and work quite well...
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/Essential_Games_List
Well, there's some hope. Not for quite a few years, though...