Anyone care to explain why there's such a big difference between a GPU and a CPU? I keep hearing how GPU's are this and that much faster than a CPU at calculations like graphics, physics and such, so naturally I assume there's a big difference that makes us still chose the x86 and x64 CPUs as the main processors of a PC. What are the limitations; why can't just the libraries be ported for GPUs instead of CPUs and why don't we then just run all calculations on a GPU, if they are anything from 2 to 50 times faster?
It just seems to me that if a graphics card can calculate physics then it would also be able to do pretty much all the same types of calculations that a regular CPU can do, but I am obviously missing a big part of it.
I hope they don't show the querys on a projector or anything, that could be somewhat distracting when there's bound to be a few "fucking idiot", "asshole" and "nice rack" searches.
If you review four games, where all except one is fairly unknown, and you get Vista to crash three of these games, you should probably do one of the following: A) Try with games that aren't filled with bugs (may I suggest some more mainstream titles that have regular patches coming out), or B) Check your hardware for broken component.
And you should probably try a few more games than that to be able to draw any conclusions at all.
I record music and release it through a couple of different record labels on various formats like CD, vinyl, tape etc. While I'm probably not anywhere near where you are in terms of number of fans (I'm counting both sales and free download), the music still has to generate some income because otherwise I would not have the time nor the money to create any more of it. It would simply take too much time for me to make the money I need to pay for equipment, studio time and other expences. And basically, the more I have to work with something else to earn money for general living expences, the less time I will have available for making music.
I don't have anything against downloading, I usually put up some free stuff on the WWW and also have never complained when someone has "warezed" my music -- in fact I thought it was really cool when I first found my music on torrent sites like Oink or The Pirate Bay -- and I would never complain or make anyone remove the torrent or anything like that. In fact I often help seed it.;)
But to be realistic, I wouldn't have been able to release the music in the first place if I didn't have the backup of a label that is willing to put up the money in advance to pay for a lot of stuff that I use, besides them also doing promotion and all that crap that some artist (e.g. me) feels takes some of the joy out of releasing music to the public. (I just want to create music, I'm no businessman.) And the labels more often than not are in it to make money.
While I certainly can't make a living on making music alone, and don't really ever expect too either, I think it's only fair if artists who wants to earn money on their music are able to do so if there are enough people out there who wants to listen to it. I honestly don't think it's a matter of measuring success with dollars for anyone but a tiny minority of artists out there; I think it's just a matter of wanting to earn enough money on the music to be able to achieve the amount of artistic freedom that you're comfortable to work with. It's nice that you have found a level which works for you, but every artist's situation is unique. Maybe some don't simply have the time to do both the music and work a regular job because of the amount of work that has to be put into creating and recording it. Someone else might not afford putting the money they earn on their day jobs on things such as music instruments and equipment or to pay for studio time. And for instance someone might say that music might as well be free since people will always pay to see the live performance, but what about those that can't or don't want to perform live for one reason or the other?
So to some artists and their fans it might actually be a big deal if they had to work a day job to pay the bills. Once again, I don't think it's a matter of measuring success with money.
A "good film" would probably require all (or most) parts to be good. At least I think the photographic quality, lighting and also the quality of the film/video is part of that. If you have a movie filmed on bad gear with bad visual and audial quality you have a movie with a good story and good acting, but not necessarily a good film.
Fortunately, effects and plot & character aren't opposites, so there's no need to worry that better effects will produce a worse story. As effects like these gets easier and cheaper to make you will get more freedom as a film maker to develop plot and character, as, progressively, things will be easier, quicker and cheaper to produce on screen. I think the opposite will actually be true: the easier the effects become to produce, more money and effort can be spent on other things in production, like for example all those things you mentioned.
Who would even want to get an OS that has a "your computer is capable of running our OS" campaign going? The word "capable" just hints that the requirements are so high just for the damn OS that I begin to wonder how much power I'll have left when my "Vista capable" machine has loaded the OS.
No, I prefer an OS that my computer is not only capable of running, but can run with flying colors.
You leave out a really important part though. Should your friend decide to overclock his computer it can quite easily go to 3.0 GHz, and go even further if he knows what he's doing, as Core 2 Duo are known to be very overclocking-friendly. So basically if you both did the same amount of tweaking to your systems (or if you both leave them untouched) his CPU is still the faster one, and by quite a bit too. So you didn't exactly buy the same performance.
"So tell me right now what's going in Papua New Guinea and why you care." I'm not making outrageous statements about living in the greatest country in the world, and such nonsense, so I don't see why you think you got me in any way because I don't know anything about Papua New Guinea. I'm just tired of the stupid claims that Americans have made and are still making all the time about their country being superior to every other place.
Anyway, you don't seem like the type of person that claims America is supreme to every other nation, but I interpreted your previous post like that which is why I got into aggressive mode. Sorry about that.
America hasn't been the greatest country in the world for a long time. Face it, plenty of European countries are as free as the US but with better social security. The saying "the greatest country in the world" that you guys like to throw around just proves how little you know or care about the rest of the world.
"2) We have a fear mongering national obsession with security that despite all the money and bureaucracy spent and created still leaves us wide open to security threats while taxing business and limiting travel. Threat levels are increased without justification to apparently further political goals."
This is the most stupid headline I've seen on Slashdot for as long as I've been here. The summary isn't doing much to clear things up either.
People, read the damn article! But I guess an easy chance to get your post moderated Funny is too hard to give up a lot of you. Too bad there is basically only one joke in this entire thread and it's been told about 200 times now.
Seriously to whoever posted this submit better summaries!
That wouldn't work for any type of software since it would render the software completely useless. Something that evil could hardly be hidden in the EULA either without the whole world knowing it within a couple of days, and by then no one would use the service anymore. It would be suicide for their business plan.
I'm pretty certain the reason they're doing this is because the pirating of Photoshop is huge with non-business users, and they'd rather release a stripped version with ads to prevent a few from using pirated versions and at the same time get some revenues through ads.
Seriously, the game is called Gran Turismo HD, and the videos are what? 320*180 resolution? I want video games that are HDTV because otherwise I've spent a lot of cash on my TV for nothing... Otherwise I could just get a PS2 or Xbox instead. I want to see the DIFFERENCE, get it?
What's the point of having in-game videos available for download for a game called Gran Turismo HD when the video resolution is so far from HD quality that it isn't even funny? Seriously, how is anyone able to determine if the game looks good from those videos?
Amiga users are certainly taking the concept of fanboyism to a whole new level.
Hell, I even had an Amiga and bashed Windows and MS-DOS back in the days, but seriously, Windows and the hardware available has evolved a lot since then and Amiga is still on square one. ScalaMM and Deluxe Paint were nice and all, but isn't it time to move on? Now you got an OS which is several years delayed without a computer to run it on. Why oh why?
Gamers only need to hold out for about 30 more years. By then every politician will have grown up with "violent" gaming themselves, and stupid things like these will be history. Of course, by then, all politicians will have something new to wrongly accuse of turning people into drooling monsters.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone care to explain why there's such a big difference between a GPU and a CPU? I keep hearing how GPU's are this and that much faster than a CPU at calculations like graphics, physics and such, so naturally I assume there's a big difference that makes us still chose the x86 and x64 CPUs as the main processors of a PC. What are the limitations; why can't just the libraries be ported for GPUs instead of CPUs and why don't we then just run all calculations on a GPU, if they are anything from 2 to 50 times faster?
:)
It just seems to me that if a graphics card can calculate physics then it would also be able to do pretty much all the same types of calculations that a regular CPU can do, but I am obviously missing a big part of it.
Experts, continue!
Yes, Photoshop 7, according to their website: http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/cat/?cat_id=19
Ok, it's Photoshop, but it certainly isn't a new version.
I think it's damn hilarious to see you don't even have the balls to show your username when you write such a thing to another user. :)
I hope they don't show the querys on a projector or anything, that could be somewhat distracting when there's bound to be a few "fucking idiot", "asshole" and "nice rack" searches.
Oooh! Google image search!
Less writing, more thinking!
If you review four games, where all except one is fairly unknown, and you get Vista to crash three of these games, you should probably do one of the following: A) Try with games that aren't filled with bugs (may I suggest some more mainstream titles that have regular patches coming out), or B) Check your hardware for broken component.
And you should probably try a few more games than that to be able to draw any conclusions at all.
I record music and release it through a couple of different record labels on various formats like CD, vinyl, tape etc. While I'm probably not anywhere near where you are in terms of number of fans (I'm counting both sales and free download), the music still has to generate some income because otherwise I would not have the time nor the money to create any more of it. It would simply take too much time for me to make the money I need to pay for equipment, studio time and other expences. And basically, the more I have to work with something else to earn money for general living expences, the less time I will have available for making music.
;)
I don't have anything against downloading, I usually put up some free stuff on the WWW and also have never complained when someone has "warezed" my music -- in fact I thought it was really cool when I first found my music on torrent sites like Oink or The Pirate Bay -- and I would never complain or make anyone remove the torrent or anything like that. In fact I often help seed it.
But to be realistic, I wouldn't have been able to release the music in the first place if I didn't have the backup of a label that is willing to put up the money in advance to pay for a lot of stuff that I use, besides them also doing promotion and all that crap that some artist (e.g. me) feels takes some of the joy out of releasing music to the public. (I just want to create music, I'm no businessman.) And the labels more often than not are in it to make money.
While I certainly can't make a living on making music alone, and don't really ever expect too either, I think it's only fair if artists who wants to earn money on their music are able to do so if there are enough people out there who wants to listen to it. I honestly don't think it's a matter of measuring success with dollars for anyone but a tiny minority of artists out there; I think it's just a matter of wanting to earn enough money on the music to be able to achieve the amount of artistic freedom that you're comfortable to work with. It's nice that you have found a level which works for you, but every artist's situation is unique. Maybe some don't simply have the time to do both the music and work a regular job because of the amount of work that has to be put into creating and recording it. Someone else might not afford putting the money they earn on their day jobs on things such as music instruments and equipment or to pay for studio time. And for instance someone might say that music might as well be free since people will always pay to see the live performance, but what about those that can't or don't want to perform live for one reason or the other?
So to some artists and their fans it might actually be a big deal if they had to work a day job to pay the bills. Once again, I don't think it's a matter of measuring success with money.
You are correct, sir.
A "good film" would probably require all (or most) parts to be good. At least I think the photographic quality, lighting and also the quality of the film/video is part of that. If you have a movie filmed on bad gear with bad visual and audial quality you have a movie with a good story and good acting, but not necessarily a good film.
Fortunately, effects and plot & character aren't opposites, so there's no need to worry that better effects will produce a worse story. As effects like these gets easier and cheaper to make you will get more freedom as a film maker to develop plot and character, as, progressively, things will be easier, quicker and cheaper to produce on screen. I think the opposite will actually be true: the easier the effects become to produce, more money and effort can be spent on other things in production, like for example all those things you mentioned.
Who would even want to get an OS that has a "your computer is capable of running our OS" campaign going? The word "capable" just hints that the requirements are so high just for the damn OS that I begin to wonder how much power I'll have left when my "Vista capable" machine has loaded the OS.
No, I prefer an OS that my computer is not only capable of running, but can run with flying colors.
You leave out a really important part though. Should your friend decide to overclock his computer it can quite easily go to 3.0 GHz, and go even further if he knows what he's doing, as Core 2 Duo are known to be very overclocking-friendly. So basically if you both did the same amount of tweaking to your systems (or if you both leave them untouched) his CPU is still the faster one, and by quite a bit too. So you didn't exactly buy the same performance.
"So tell me right now what's going in Papua New Guinea and why you care."
I'm not making outrageous statements about living in the greatest country in the world, and such nonsense, so I don't see why you think you got me in any way because I don't know anything about Papua New Guinea. I'm just tired of the stupid claims that Americans have made and are still making all the time about their country being superior to every other place.
Anyway, you don't seem like the type of person that claims America is supreme to every other nation, but I interpreted your previous post like that which is why I got into aggressive mode. Sorry about that.
America hasn't been the greatest country in the world for a long time. Face it, plenty of European countries are as free as the US but with better social security. The saying "the greatest country in the world" that you guys like to throw around just proves how little you know or care about the rest of the world.
"2) We have a fear mongering national obsession with security that despite all the money and bureaucracy spent and created still leaves us wide open to security threats while taxing business and limiting travel. Threat levels are increased without justification to apparently further political goals."
Sounds like the tcpip.sys fix in Windows XP SP2.
A-HA!! Only a couch potato would consider the Wii too even remotely resemble actual exercise!
OK, enough with this joke and the "in soviet russia anonymizer something, something...".
You're so right, that's like, totally the same as having to return eleven Xboxes.
This is the most stupid headline I've seen on Slashdot for as long as I've been here. The summary isn't doing much to clear things up either.
People, read the damn article! But I guess an easy chance to get your post moderated Funny is too hard to give up a lot of you. Too bad there is basically only one joke in this entire thread and it's been told about 200 times now.
Seriously to whoever posted this submit better summaries!
Windows may be insecure and all that, but they are hardly to blame any more than a car manufacturer is to blame for drunk drivings or hit and runs.
That wouldn't work for any type of software since it would render the software completely useless. Something that evil could hardly be hidden in the EULA either without the whole world knowing it within a couple of days, and by then no one would use the service anymore. It would be suicide for their business plan.
I'm pretty certain the reason they're doing this is because the pirating of Photoshop is huge with non-business users, and they'd rather release a stripped version with ads to prevent a few from using pirated versions and at the same time get some revenues through ads.
Yeah, maybe?
Seriously, the game is called Gran Turismo HD, and the videos are what? 320*180 resolution? I want video games that are HDTV because otherwise I've spent a lot of cash on my TV for nothing... Otherwise I could just get a PS2 or Xbox instead. I want to see the DIFFERENCE, get it?
What's the point of having in-game videos available for download for a game called Gran Turismo HD when the video resolution is so far from HD quality that it isn't even funny? Seriously, how is anyone able to determine if the game looks good from those videos?
Amiga users are certainly taking the concept of fanboyism to a whole new level.
Hell, I even had an Amiga and bashed Windows and MS-DOS back in the days, but seriously, Windows and the hardware available has evolved a lot since then and Amiga is still on square one. ScalaMM and Deluxe Paint were nice and all, but isn't it time to move on? Now you got an OS which is several years delayed without a computer to run it on. Why oh why?
Gamers only need to hold out for about 30 more years. By then every politician will have grown up with "violent" gaming themselves, and stupid things like these will be history. Of course, by then, all politicians will have something new to wrongly accuse of turning people into drooling monsters.