It seems to me that developers only complain because the consoles have less RAM than PCs. It's as if the benchmark is what PCs can do, not the original vision. So the amount needed seems to be mostly subjective instead of what is actually needed. I reiterate that there were great games that did cool things in the past and were appreciated despite limitations and the lack of HD.
When a VGA monitor is connected, many Dreamcast games would display at either 800x600 or 1024x768 (depending on the game.)
I call bullshit. There are only two known Dreamcast games to display at 800x600 (600p) when connected to a VGA monitor, and those are Sonic Adventure and Power Stone. All the rest ran at 640x480 (480p).
The Dreamcast GPU is capable of running at 1024x768, but then little remaining memory is left to work with textures.
It seems to me that games would get on the market faster if the project didn't have to be restarted twice due to bad management, and less costly if it didn't have to be HD.
There was a major UI update a couple weeks ago. The latency seems to have lessened with it (perhaps because now it's an overlay instead of a separate interface with downscaled TV in the corner), but it's still there.
I disagree. The web browser has to parse all of that JavaScript every time it loads a page with JavaScript that requires it. In most cases it's not even really necessary, as the JavaScript only uses a couple library functions that could easily be written by yourself (like XmlHttpRequest).
Why do you need loads of RAM? I remember a time when developers made great games with just 16 MB of main RAM and 8 MB of GPU RAM. The PlayStation had even less than that, and it had its own slew of great games.
In my experience with Belgacom's digital TV, input latency is the norm. Most of the time when you input a command, it takes at least a second for it to execute. It's quite frustrating.
Nintendo will no doubt have a war-chest due to the Wii's early sales, so moving to a new platform which, at the very least, has technical parity with the 360 and PS3 to enable easier cross-platform development would be a smart move.
I don't think so. The HD craze is bleeding developers dry economically. The industry is sick (in a medical sense) at the moment.
One example is Bizarre Creations. Remember them? They made Metropolis Street Racer and the Project Gotham Racing games. Well, their last two games tanked, and they're now out of business. The industry is that fragile at the moment.
You claimed that Phoenix was about killing IE, while the actual people who started the project stated they did because Mozilla was bloated and slow.
The charter they published said otherwise. Some quotes:
Mozilla Firebird grew out of the desire to make the best browser for Microsoft Windows.
The goal was, and is not to have more or less features than any other client (Mozilla included) but to have the right set of features to let people get their jobs done.
The target market for Mozilla Firebird includes all users who are sufficiently sophisticated in computer skill as to be able to download and install their own browser. This includes a large number of intermediate-to-advanced folk who are currently using Internet Explorer.
For the record, I long believed the same thing as you.
You can't just rewrite history in your mind, because it's inconvenient to your worldview ("mozilla was fast! it was awesome! everyone loved it!").
I'm not the one rewriting history here. I never said everyone loved Mozilla either.
I've used Mozilla since 1.2 on an old Pentium II 233 Mhz. It was fast, and got even faster.
Phoenix in the beginning was very fast because it barely had any UI. But once they started to add things, it only got slower.
I looked into it, and it looks like it's partly fixed for Gecko 1.9.1 (which SeaMonkey 2.0 uses), and the real fix has been applied to Gecko 1.9.2. So we'll have to wait for SeaMonkey 2.1 or 3.0 (no idea what they're planning) before we can get an official release with the real fix.
Looks like OpenSUSE fixed it by making SeaMonkey use its internal Cairo library in the meantime.
Once upon a time there was a browser named Mozilla, also known as Mozilla Application Suite, which grew and grew. It became a huge pile of bloat. A few developers refused the bloat started an experimental branch at Mozilla which eventually evolved into Firefox. Their goal was to create a mean lean browser without the bloat.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM ThinkPads may have that reputation, but Lenovo ThinkPads aren't as good.
It seems to me that developers only complain because the consoles have less RAM than PCs. It's as if the benchmark is what PCs can do, not the original vision. So the amount needed seems to be mostly subjective instead of what is actually needed. I reiterate that there were great games that did cool things in the past and were appreciated despite limitations and the lack of HD.
I call bullshit. There are only two known Dreamcast games to display at 800x600 (600p) when connected to a VGA monitor, and those are Sonic Adventure and Power Stone. All the rest ran at 640x480 (480p).
The Dreamcast GPU is capable of running at 1024x768, but then little remaining memory is left to work with textures.
It seems to me that games would get on the market faster if the project didn't have to be restarted twice due to bad management, and less costly if it didn't have to be HD.
There was a major UI update a couple weeks ago. The latency seems to have lessened with it (perhaps because now it's an overlay instead of a separate interface with downscaled TV in the corner), but it's still there.
What you emphasise isn't even written correctly. Please retake your grammar classes.
I disagree. The web browser has to parse all of that JavaScript every time it loads a page with JavaScript that requires it. In most cases it's not even really necessary, as the JavaScript only uses a couple library functions that could easily be written by yourself (like XmlHttpRequest).
Because no matter how loudly we complain, site management doesn't give a shit.
Microsoft can tell you that being first in the pool can work out great if you make enough noise.
Why do you need loads of RAM? I remember a time when developers made great games with just 16 MB of main RAM and 8 MB of GPU RAM. The PlayStation had even less than that, and it had its own slew of great games.
What are you smoking? The Dreamcast doesn't do HD. Are you referring to 480p? Because that's not HD.
If you're talking about the technical capability of the video card to output higher resolutions than 480p, the Wii's can do that as well.
Analog for the win, because it doesn't have lag.
In my experience with Belgacom's digital TV, input latency is the norm. Most of the time when you input a command, it takes at least a second for it to execute. It's quite frustrating.
Your signature says you filter ACs, yet you replied to an AC...
It has been old-fashioned for years. People type what they want to go to in Google and click one of the first results.
They get points for placing an analog pad on the right place, but the controller's D-pad is horribly bad.
Except that Netscape wasn't bloated. Version 6 was released when the code wasn't stable, and that was the end of it.
I don't think the casual gamers, which the Wii is targeted at, care what video resolution their system uses.
Well, duh. Flash still sucks. News at 11.
It has plenty of power for 480p gaming, which is what it does.
What are you smoking? No one has ever considered 480p to be "HD".
I don't think so. The HD craze is bleeding developers dry economically. The industry is sick (in a medical sense) at the moment.
One example is Bizarre Creations. Remember them? They made Metropolis Street Racer and the Project Gotham Racing games. Well, their last two games tanked, and they're now out of business. The industry is that fragile at the moment.
The charter they published said otherwise. Some quotes:
For the record, I long believed the same thing as you.
I'm not the one rewriting history here. I never said everyone loved Mozilla either.
I've used Mozilla since 1.2 on an old Pentium II 233 Mhz. It was fast, and got even faster.
Phoenix in the beginning was very fast because it barely had any UI. But once they started to add things, it only got slower.
I looked into it, and it looks like it's partly fixed for Gecko 1.9.1 (which SeaMonkey 2.0 uses), and the real fix has been applied to Gecko 1.9.2. So we'll have to wait for SeaMonkey 2.1 or 3.0 (no idea what they're planning) before we can get an official release with the real fix.
Looks like OpenSUSE fixed it by making SeaMonkey use its internal Cairo library in the meantime.
You do realise that you cited the Firefox side, right? They're biased. It's just their opinion that the suite didn't have the "right set of features".
The suite was plenty fast on an old computer.
That never was the reason. Read more.
As I've said in a previous comment, this is blatant revisionism.