No but considering the shader units are highly specialized chips that can do loads of operations VERY quickly and do so in the video RAM it would add a lot of unnecessary load to send that data back to the CPU and let it do those computations. The CPU would have to do loads of quick matrix operations on the geometry as well as calculate multiple per-pixel effects. There's 32 (or so) of these unified shader units on a graphics card. Good luck sending all that data over the video bus, processing it in the CPU and sending it back all the while the CPU is calculating the game behaviour and the bus is saturated with all the drawing instructions sent by the code. I've seen what loading a texture over the video bus every frame does (2 FPS), a pixel shader, especially with multiple passes, would produce a lot more data than that.
The result would be so slow that you could just as well tell the owners of that hardware that their hardware is incompatible so they don't start complaining to the game's tech support that they get only two FPS.
It's moving in this direction, but unfortunately it is DX10 and MS saying "You have to meet these requirements on your hardware to be compliant."
Well, duh, if the API is supposed to be the same independent of the underlying hardware you need guarantees for how the hardware behaves and all the minimum features must be available. Would be pointless if you still had to check for everything if it's available on the system or not and deal with different implementations of a "standard" with each vendor. If the API offers multipurpose shader units then the hardware must have them, otherwise what would you do if the code assigns an order to these units?
The biggest source of profit for Gamestop is used games and they don't sell used PC games. That's probably the biggest reason they allocate so much space to the consoles (and most of it to used games with a few token new ones).
There's loads of commercial content that isn't DRMed. CDs, mp3s, etc. As long as they're still selling CDs you can get DRM-free material.
It's not like the currently DRMed stuff would be DRM free if MS didn't support DRM, their products would just be incapable of playing those files and somebody else (e.g. Apple) would offer a DRM format that the content gets released in so you'd be just as SOL whether MS offers DRM or not.
MS is prohibited by law to just put a playback feature in there, they have to acquire a license from the bodies responsible for the HD formats and to get that license they have to sign a contract saying that their products will not output a full quality digital signal if there is no complete HDCP chain.
There is no legal way for MS to allow Vista to play HD media at full quality without a HDCP chain. Would you be happy if MS had just said "screw it" and didn't include a decoder for HD media at all?
Second, Sony Music is the most powerful member of the RIAA! The RIAA at large will never sue Sony.
I do recall Sony suing Sony over tape recorders or something. Their content and electronics divisions are separate and will fight each other if necessary.
The copyright holder decides if his material is subject to DRM, your holiday photos aren't restricted unless you tell them to be. The whole point of DRM is that the copyright holder can set restrictions that get enforced, if they don't want restrictions the DRM won't restrict the user.
More exactly if you don't play back copyrighted and restricted content, files you ripped yourself or "received" without DRM on them aren't subject to any limitations.
Man, our freaking GOVERNMENT stopped using the Tiger in '45, isn't it about time you got yourself something more modern? If you don't like the Leopard how about the Abrams?
A five buttoned board for the left hand and the remote acting like the pick in the right hand. The left hand part may need to be bigger (perhaps even including the guitar body) to allow proper holding.
Do you think that there would be no DRM capable format available if it weren't for this Vista feature? The movie industry wants DRM, the format has to provide it to get support from them. MS wants to offer playback as a feature in their OS which means they have to implement DRM. If Vista wasn't capable of playing back HD discs the movie industry wouldn't care because most people use a standalone player to play video discs and realistically MS has more to lose than the MPAA (especially if a competitor like Apple chose to implement that DRM and offer HD playback when MS doesn't). Therefore MS had no choice but to implement DRM unless they wanted to sacrifice profits for a bit of goodwill from a group of people (Slashdotters and other anti-DRM geeks) that will just find another reason to hate them.
Slashdot Mirror
No but considering the shader units are highly specialized chips that can do loads of operations VERY quickly and do so in the video RAM it would add a lot of unnecessary load to send that data back to the CPU and let it do those computations. The CPU would have to do loads of quick matrix operations on the geometry as well as calculate multiple per-pixel effects. There's 32 (or so) of these unified shader units on a graphics card. Good luck sending all that data over the video bus, processing it in the CPU and sending it back all the while the CPU is calculating the game behaviour and the bus is saturated with all the drawing instructions sent by the code. I've seen what loading a texture over the video bus every frame does (2 FPS), a pixel shader, especially with multiple passes, would produce a lot more data than that.
The point of Vista and the RIAA is to get rid of that stuff
I haven't seen anything that suggests Vista discourages using unrestricted content.
What, squirting on people's graves?
The result would be so slow that you could just as well tell the owners of that hardware that their hardware is incompatible so they don't start complaining to the game's tech support that they get only two FPS.
Billy Hatcher had a PC port but I haven't seen it for other consoles.
It's moving in this direction, but unfortunately it is DX10 and MS saying "You have to meet these requirements on your hardware to be compliant."
Well, duh, if the API is supposed to be the same independent of the underlying hardware you need guarantees for how the hardware behaves and all the minimum features must be available. Would be pointless if you still had to check for everything if it's available on the system or not and deal with different implementations of a "standard" with each vendor. If the API offers multipurpose shader units then the hardware must have them, otherwise what would you do if the code assigns an order to these units?
The biggest source of profit for Gamestop is used games and they don't sell used PC games. That's probably the biggest reason they allocate so much space to the consoles (and most of it to used games with a few token new ones).
Considering the size of the payments he could have bought that a long time ago and still be paying it off.
Of course, beer with live yeast tends to be high-gravity high-dextrin as well in practice.
So it's not the alcohol but the gravitational pull of the beer that makes keeping your balance difficult?
your many cultures of natural bacteria are forming a United Organs and vito-ing your brain.
So that's how a brainchild is made?
You're not supposed to eat the stuff Dibbler sells.
There's loads of commercial content that isn't DRMed. CDs, mp3s, etc. As long as they're still selling CDs you can get DRM-free material.
It's not like the currently DRMed stuff would be DRM free if MS didn't support DRM, their products would just be incapable of playing those files and somebody else (e.g. Apple) would offer a DRM format that the content gets released in so you'd be just as SOL whether MS offers DRM or not.
Feel free to delete the "defective" decoder library then.
MS is prohibited by law to just put a playback feature in there, they have to acquire a license from the bodies responsible for the HD formats and to get that license they have to sign a contract saying that their products will not output a full quality digital signal if there is no complete HDCP chain.
There is no legal way for MS to allow Vista to play HD media at full quality without a HDCP chain. Would you be happy if MS had just said "screw it" and didn't include a decoder for HD media at all?
Second, Sony Music is the most powerful member of the RIAA! The RIAA at large will never sue Sony.
I do recall Sony suing Sony over tape recorders or something. Their content and electronics divisions are separate and will fight each other if necessary.
The copyright holder decides if his material is subject to DRM, your holiday photos aren't restricted unless you tell them to be. The whole point of DRM is that the copyright holder can set restrictions that get enforced, if they don't want restrictions the DRM won't restrict the user.
Well, yes, that's what people do when they make software for embedded systems.
More exactly if you don't play back copyrighted and restricted content, files you ripped yourself or "received" without DRM on them aren't subject to any limitations.
In that case it's funny he mentions Ninja Gaiden which is really just a Castlevania ripoff with ninjas.
Man, our freaking GOVERNMENT stopped using the Tiger in '45, isn't it about time you got yourself something more modern? If you don't like the Leopard how about the Abrams?
A five buttoned board for the left hand and the remote acting like the pick in the right hand. The left hand part may need to be bigger (perhaps even including the guitar body) to allow proper holding.
I don't understand it either but "commercial content scenario" sounds like an emergency.
Considering everything else dates back to 2000 or earlier that wasn't too surprising.
You must be playing pretty boring games to use sprite in the singular.
Do you think that there would be no DRM capable format available if it weren't for this Vista feature? The movie industry wants DRM, the format has to provide it to get support from them. MS wants to offer playback as a feature in their OS which means they have to implement DRM. If Vista wasn't capable of playing back HD discs the movie industry wouldn't care because most people use a standalone player to play video discs and realistically MS has more to lose than the MPAA (especially if a competitor like Apple chose to implement that DRM and offer HD playback when MS doesn't). Therefore MS had no choice but to implement DRM unless they wanted to sacrifice profits for a bit of goodwill from a group of people (Slashdotters and other anti-DRM geeks) that will just find another reason to hate them.