The main power of Quark Express is in its shortcuts. Experienced DTP users can set up a page blazingly fast, and in less than 5mins the have a full doc setup through mostly keystrokes. That`s the main reason why a lot of them whine when the shortcuts change between versions, and that`s why more than a lot stick with older versions of a program if the newer ones have "changed stuff" (Quark5 being a prime example, as far as they tell me).
For a different program to have success in this field, there mustn`t exist only a nice interface but a similarity with the most well known "players". How different is it from Quark and Pagemaker? Can it be configured to work in a similar way? Its widgets are not its main power, proper seperations, SMYC and RGB support, similarity to other apps are what can make it succesfull.
First things first, if these two are the FIRST titles to need DirectX-9 Support, then why is a friend of mines machine, equiped with GeForce4 MX, unable to run Prince Of Persia 3D, among some other games? Why does, in its "readme" file state specifically that "the game has problem with this card because it doesn`t fully support DirectX 9"??? The problem rears its ugly head for the first time because it IS the first time in the whole PCs lifeline that a game might-not-work on your hardware and you won`t know it. The afformentioned guy didn`t have a way to know if the game supports his hardware, heck, he DID have a "recent card", didn`t he? And, for most newbies, it is waaaay harder to know what is the graphics card they own than "if they have a CD" (so as to play Myst, like someone mentioned before). Some years ago you knew that, to hear sound you need a soundcard. To play MYST you needed a CD-Rom. To play Overseer you needed a DVD-Rom... and so on. And, at all times, the processor wasn`t so important - yeah, it was, but not so much as it is today. Now, look at games like Farcry... Deus-Ex 2... Their minimum specs are a joke, but yes, you can turn down the graphics detail wich brings us to another point that was, again, mentioned before...
The graphics. Nowadays, games are more about the "whoa!" factor, their best part, the reason you`ll choose a game from another being the graphics quality. Now, I got Farcry and tried to Run it on a Duron 1.3GHz with a Radeon 9600. I had to turn down the resolution. I had to turn down the details. I had to make it look WORSE than Thief, wich I`m playing right now, to be able to play it at a normal framerate. The underlying technology, with lush jungles and awesome lighting was there allright, but with pixels the size of my thumb, and on an Eizo 21'' it was quite appalling. Maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere has to reconsider the way he makes games...
And, the fourth and last part I want to make, is regarding Half-Life. Someone mentioned that "it didn`t have graphics", compared to other titles that were released then. Well, it actually HAD graphics, it didn`t have what is called "graphics technology". Half-Lifes graphics were the most realistic ever designed until then, and that`s not because of the textures, the lighting or anything, but because the level designers tried to recreate realistic offices, buildings, a world that could actually exist. It was the first time we weren`t moving in hell or some spaceships corridors but in a realistic building (and some other places), in the MESA complex. That`s the best part about the first Half-Life, and not the scripting, the AI, the graphics tech or something else. Just think of it: yeah, the AI was excellent, but if it WASN`T there, wouldn`t you again play the darn game? Was there anything even remotely similar to it for you to try? Nope... So yes, it did have "graphics" as far as I`m concerned, graphics that made me believe I was moving in the shoes of Freeman.
Lelease Thamthon, the thirial athathin...
The environment doesn`t have to do with the prank in itself. When I was in the army, wich is not the most happy environmnet you can get, we actually turned 180 degrees the bed of a sleeping friend without waking him up! Oh, the look on his face when he woke up and in front of him was a wall..! Took about 1 full minute looking arround, trying to understand what had happend.
We managed to best this by doing something more "extreme" along the same lines. We managed to transfer a friends bed, again while he was sleeping on it, out of the room where he slept. He woke up under a tree...
I know of a program for the Symbian platform that can find out your location using the Cells to wich your phone connects and change the phone settings according to profiles you`ve set. That way you can, for example, synchronise a folder on your Smartphone with your work PC via bluetooth and so on.
So, I guess that the system in question isn`t, actually, that usefull since Cell-based recognition is allready used and with good results.
I dunno about precision though...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
The main power of Quark Express is in its shortcuts. Experienced DTP users can set up a page blazingly fast, and in less than 5mins the have a full doc setup through mostly keystrokes. That`s the main reason why a lot of them whine when the shortcuts change between versions, and that`s why more than a lot stick with older versions of a program if the newer ones have "changed stuff" (Quark5 being a prime example, as far as they tell me). For a different program to have success in this field, there mustn`t exist only a nice interface but a similarity with the most well known "players". How different is it from Quark and Pagemaker? Can it be configured to work in a similar way? Its widgets are not its main power, proper seperations, SMYC and RGB support, similarity to other apps are what can make it succesfull.
First things first, if these two are the FIRST titles to need DirectX-9 Support, then why is a friend of mines machine, equiped with GeForce4 MX, unable to run Prince Of Persia 3D, among some other games? Why does, in its "readme" file state specifically that "the game has problem with this card because it doesn`t fully support DirectX 9"??? The problem rears its ugly head for the first time because it IS the first time in the whole PCs lifeline that a game might-not-work on your hardware and you won`t know it. The afformentioned guy didn`t have a way to know if the game supports his hardware, heck, he DID have a "recent card", didn`t he? And, for most newbies, it is waaaay harder to know what is the graphics card they own than "if they have a CD" (so as to play Myst, like someone mentioned before). Some years ago you knew that, to hear sound you need a soundcard. To play MYST you needed a CD-Rom. To play Overseer you needed a DVD-Rom... and so on. And, at all times, the processor wasn`t so important - yeah, it was, but not so much as it is today. Now, look at games like Farcry... Deus-Ex 2... Their minimum specs are a joke, but yes, you can turn down the graphics detail wich brings us to another point that was, again, mentioned before... The graphics. Nowadays, games are more about the "whoa!" factor, their best part, the reason you`ll choose a game from another being the graphics quality. Now, I got Farcry and tried to Run it on a Duron 1.3GHz with a Radeon 9600. I had to turn down the resolution. I had to turn down the details. I had to make it look WORSE than Thief, wich I`m playing right now, to be able to play it at a normal framerate. The underlying technology, with lush jungles and awesome lighting was there allright, but with pixels the size of my thumb, and on an Eizo 21'' it was quite appalling. Maybe, just maybe, someone, somewhere has to reconsider the way he makes games... And, the fourth and last part I want to make, is regarding Half-Life. Someone mentioned that "it didn`t have graphics", compared to other titles that were released then. Well, it actually HAD graphics, it didn`t have what is called "graphics technology". Half-Lifes graphics were the most realistic ever designed until then, and that`s not because of the textures, the lighting or anything, but because the level designers tried to recreate realistic offices, buildings, a world that could actually exist. It was the first time we weren`t moving in hell or some spaceships corridors but in a realistic building (and some other places), in the MESA complex. That`s the best part about the first Half-Life, and not the scripting, the AI, the graphics tech or something else. Just think of it: yeah, the AI was excellent, but if it WASN`T there, wouldn`t you again play the darn game? Was there anything even remotely similar to it for you to try? Nope... So yes, it did have "graphics" as far as I`m concerned, graphics that made me believe I was moving in the shoes of Freeman. Lelease Thamthon, the thirial athathin...
I think I can see it coming... Hey, Koolio: Bring me some Vanilla Ice..!
The environment doesn`t have to do with the prank in itself. When I was in the army, wich is not the most happy environmnet you can get, we actually turned 180 degrees the bed of a sleeping friend without waking him up! Oh, the look on his face when he woke up and in front of him was a wall..! Took about 1 full minute looking arround, trying to understand what had happend.
We managed to best this by doing something more "extreme" along the same lines. We managed to transfer a friends bed, again while he was sleeping on it, out of the room where he slept. He woke up under a tree...
I know of a program for the Symbian platform that can find out your location using the Cells to wich your phone connects and change the phone settings according to profiles you`ve set. That way you can, for example, synchronise a folder on your Smartphone with your work PC via bluetooth and so on. So, I guess that the system in question isn`t, actually, that usefull since Cell-based recognition is allready used and with good results. I dunno about precision though... ;-)