You missed the big part. They patented the method DooM 3 uses for handling shadows.
Creative patented a graphical technique, and are now using that patent to force ID endorsement.
This want a case of him caving-in to support them, he caved because he felt the game just wouldn't be the same if he had to take-out all the shadows in the game.
Personally, I'd rather he said "See you in court then, bitches." and put a portion of the DooM3 take into a legal defense fund for whomping on Creative, but I won't fault him for trying to keep litigation down.
I'm more concerned with the fact that:
A: If it were true, then that would mean that either Slashdot is sitting on stories and discussions for well over 4 months, or that somebody has a temporal ISP.
B: It's above the [Reply to post | Parent] tag.
Actually, if properly done there's a significant processor usage *drop*.
Please keep in mind, we're in the age of the 3d accelerator. We could displacement map and alpha blend every window so we could see our particle-effect icons without eating into our CPU at all.
Keep in mind that this is for Windows XP, a system that software-renders curved corners and fading menus. Just idling eats-up about half your cycles on stupid eyecandy. 3D acceleration would make those curves and fades cost 0.00% more than a plain window.... Actually, it probably is a bad idea. god help us if MS could lens flare everything.
I honestly don't think the parent read the article. (shock!)
The no-pop-up part refers to software installed onto a system (Usually without knowledge or consent) that displays pop-up ads even while the machine is isolated from the world.
There's few things more irritating than playing Warcraft 3 and lagging because somebody in the game has one of these SPYWARE VIRUSES that spawns a graphically-intense flash animation on top of the game with "Realtime" priority. I think companies that do that should indeed pay for a $10,000 finders fee that goes to the person that brings them to prosecution.
'Sides, settlements always get whittled down in appeals anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the big part. They patented the method DooM 3 uses for handling shadows. Creative patented a graphical technique, and are now using that patent to force ID endorsement. This want a case of him caving-in to support them, he caved because he felt the game just wouldn't be the same if he had to take-out all the shadows in the game. Personally, I'd rather he said "See you in court then, bitches." and put a portion of the DooM3 take into a legal defense fund for whomping on Creative, but I won't fault him for trying to keep litigation down.
I'm more concerned with the fact that: A: If it were true, then that would mean that either Slashdot is sitting on stories and discussions for well over 4 months, or that somebody has a temporal ISP. B: It's above the [Reply to post | Parent] tag.
Almost all are primarily 3D, and you have no idea just how much work the CPU does even *with* a 2D accelerator.
Actually, if properly done there's a significant processor usage *drop*. Please keep in mind, we're in the age of the 3d accelerator. We could displacement map and alpha blend every window so we could see our particle-effect icons without eating into our CPU at all. Keep in mind that this is for Windows XP, a system that software-renders curved corners and fading menus. Just idling eats-up about half your cycles on stupid eyecandy. 3D acceleration would make those curves and fades cost 0.00% more than a plain window. ... Actually, it probably is a bad idea. god help us if MS could lens flare everything.
I honestly don't think the parent read the article. (shock!) The no-pop-up part refers to software installed onto a system (Usually without knowledge or consent) that displays pop-up ads even while the machine is isolated from the world. There's few things more irritating than playing Warcraft 3 and lagging because somebody in the game has one of these SPYWARE VIRUSES that spawns a graphically-intense flash animation on top of the game with "Realtime" priority. I think companies that do that should indeed pay for a $10,000 finders fee that goes to the person that brings them to prosecution. 'Sides, settlements always get whittled down in appeals anyway.