Console compare...
Haggis³
http://www.segatech.com/technical/index.html
The first two articles on teh page concern the gamcube versus other
consoles.
Does anyone know if the information on this site is accurate?
If it is, then why do the gamecube games look as good or (as some people
have said) seem to perform better than the xbox? Will the xbox eventually
sort itself out and show its apparent potential suggested by this site?
I was sunder the impression that GC was much closer to xbox in performance,
I'm beginning o doubt that now.
Can anyone shed some info on this for me as I was firmly on the side of GC,
but I'm not too sure now (but I still want to play zelda, mario etc..).
Cheers,
Haggis³
D2³
>
>If it is, then why do the gamecube games look as good or (as some people
>have said) seem to perform better than the xbox? Will the xbox eventually
>sort itself out and show its apparent potential suggested by this site?
>
By numbers, the xbox has more power. Why dont the games look any better than
PS2 or GC?
The answer is simple. All programming is done under Direct X. Game
developers are restricted to certain boundaries when programming in direct
x.... Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of programming that
the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all those resources to be used.
Think of this xbox this way.... humans only use 15% of their full brain
capacity, even at the genius level. Direct X, being used to its fullest
ability, does not use all of the xbox's resources. You can thank Microsoft
pride for that. The xbox COULD have pushed gaming to a new level, but
microsoft programming protocols are nowhere near as advanced as the computer
hardware is.
Lastly, I've been hearing nothing but bad news about the xbox from
classmates at college and reports in general.... It seems that people were
expecting more out of it, feeling ripped off.
--
"When an adult wants to feel like a child."
-Quote from an XBOX commercial
trankscuzzball
"D2³" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote in
news:1KgJ7.89844$XA5.15...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
koorbł
>Haggisł
The numbers are accurate. The XBox has bigger numbers, but the team
that designed the GC engineered it very well, so its very efficient,
pushing it to the point were numbers mean nothing because the GC can
do more then the XBox even though at a glance its slower.
Its just things like the memory setup, the bus layout and the way the
clock speeds are balanced that makes it more than a console, more like
a piece of art. The team that designed it really had a passion for
what they where doing.
Skye
"D2³" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote in message
news:1KgJ7.89844$XA5.15...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
>
> >
> >If it is, then why do the gamecube games look as good or (as some people
> >have said) seem to perform better than the xbox? Will the xbox eventually
> >sort itself out and show its apparent potential suggested by this site?
> >
>
> By numbers, the xbox has more power. Why dont the games look any better
than
> PS2 or GC?
Dude, I haven't seen a single game on the PS2 or GC that comes close to the
graphics of Halo. But then again, it takes more than good looks to make a
game great, and the PS2 has tons of awesome games. The GC will have some in
the future from Nintendo. The Xbox has Halo...and thats it.
As an owner of all 3, I can't wait to just pick and choose the awesome
titles from each.
Skye
koorbł
>Haggisł
Not shur about the second article because, and I quote
"A weakness in the GC design is that a huge chunk of it's total
memory, 16 MB worth, cannot be used to hold textures for immediate
rendering, as that memory is dedicated memory for the sound processor
and the CPU. There is not much that even the CPU can do with this
memory, as it only has 81 MB of bandwith available, due to it's small
8-bit interface. Nintendo should have strongly considered having a
total of 48 MB of 1T-SRAM instead of 24 MB."
They didn't take into account that this area of the memory that is not
accessible for textures would be used for the api side for things for
stuff like the AI and physics. They also failed to take into account
that data will be constantly streamed from the CD meaning the GC
doesn't need as much ram as the XBox because that loads everything
into the ram before running the game. This streaming allows the GC to
only load the bits of the level you are currently playing in, freeing
up power for other functions like lighting.
D2³
>Dude, I haven't seen a single game on the PS2 or GC that comes close to the
>graphics of Halo.
Bro, Ive seen and tested this game. It cant even hold a candle to the likes
of Unreal Tournament or Everquest. It's nothing new and awe-inspiring as far
as graphic technology goes.
D2³
trankscuzzball wrote in message ...
>Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
>
Nah, the GC has more to offeras far as game quality and fun are concerned...
and that is the main object in video games.
I think those who own a PS2 and a GC basically have all bases covered, right
down to the DVD abilities. The unsuccesful xbox launch is going to hurt
Microsoft for the Christmas holidays for certain.
pd
"trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
drive, and good games.
DT
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
"pd" <p...@pdhouse.com> wrote in message
news:tvbhrm1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
> drive, and good games.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Tony P
place... Sure, its nice to have, but few actually will use it. Perhaps in
~2 years, internet gaming is supposed to take off.
"pd" <p...@pdhouse.com> wrote in message
news:tvbhrm1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
> drive, and good games.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "D2ł" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote in
Neo
it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit somewhere
elseLOL
"DT" <Da...@DaveTunisiaREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:uMjJ7.3152$yV.9...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
> "pd" <p...@pdhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:tvbhrm1...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> > > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
> >
> > unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a
hard
> > drive, and good games.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
Danoot³
This bit:
DC (100 MT/s) vs GC (648 MT/s) vs Xbox (1864 MT/s)
Texel is short for texture element. A texel is an individual pixel that
is part of a texture.
DC has 1 pipeline with 1 texel unit.
GC has 4 pipelines with 1 texel unit per pipeline.
Xbox has 4 pipelines with 2 texel units per pipeline.
As you can see the GC and Xbox are vastly more
powerful than the DC when it comes to
multi-texturing, which is very important for
light/shadow maps, bump mapping, gloss & dirt maps,
etc.
The Xbox seems to be in a league of it own when it
comes to multi-texturing with it's 1864 MT/sec rate.
This will allow bump mapping to be standard in games,
where as they were not present in the vast majority
of DC games even though the DC's GPU had bump
mapping capability.
Seems a little dodgy..
Doesn't the GC do 8 simultaneous texture effects per pipeline/pass?
where the xbox only does one?
Danoot
D2³
Neo wrote in message ...
>listen to me fuck nut, the xbox is a gamming console ass-hole. and thats it
>it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit somewhere
I think he was saying that if he wanted those features hed get a pc... we
all know the xbox isnt a pc.... it couldnt live up to the graphical power of
a pc.
Exatron
news:dXkJ7.99290$SF4.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com:
> listen to me fuck nut, the xbox is a gamming console ass-hole. and
> thats it it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit
> somewhere elseLOL
According to developers the only difference between code writen for the
Xbox and code written for a PC is a few header file definitions.
--
Exatron
CHAOS WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH OVER ORDER!!!
It is the way of things.
"Logic is the ultimate weapon"
Never lose a holy curiosity.
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
- Albert Einstein
Joe Ottoson
> news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
> drive, and good games.
What's that got to do with the Xbox? It has no quality games at all. The
launch was a diasaster.
D2³
Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of
>>> programming that the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all those
>>> resources to be used.
>
>with Xbox.
Trust me, its true. Ive seen such coding in action. Know much about direct
x? I know a large deal of it. Direct X programming is shutting the
developers off from a LOT of the hardware resources.
>
>>> Think of this xbox this way.... humans only use 15% of their full brain
>>> capacity, even at the genius level.
>
>That's a myth.
"Mary, mary quite contrary..." Read up on it sometime. Reality is not a
myth.
nebula ³
"Neo" <sfrus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dXkJ7.99290$SF4.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> listen to me fuck nut, the xbox is a gamming console ass-hole.
ah-hah! someone finally admits that the xbox is officially a "*gamming*
console ass-hole" Do you like your gamming console with a built in asshole?
and thats it
> it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit somewhere
> elseLOL
LOL, that was so funny!
--
-nebula ł-
"blame the canadian, slap the kicksen -- this is agvngc"
But yeah, hey don't be like me :o)
Leon Dexter
news:3bf5ae48...@news.freeserve.net...
> Not shur about the second article because, and I quote
>
> "A weakness in the GC design is that a huge chunk of it's total
> memory, 16 MB worth, cannot be used to hold textures for immediate
> rendering, as that memory is dedicated memory for the sound processor
> and the CPU. There is not much that even the CPU can do with this
> memory, as it only has 81 MB of bandwith available, due to it's small
> 8-bit interface. Nintendo should have strongly considered having a
> total of 48 MB of 1T-SRAM instead of 24 MB."
>
> They didn't take into account that this area of the memory that is not
> accessible for textures would be used for the api side for things for
> stuff like the AI and physics. They also failed to take into account
> that data will be constantly streamed from the CD meaning the GC
> doesn't need as much ram as the XBox because that loads everything
> into the ram before running the game. This streaming allows the GC to
> only load the bits of the level you are currently playing in, freeing
> up power for other functions like lighting.
Actually, that 16 MB of RAM is supposed to be for sound, hence the low
bandwidth which simply isn't necessary for sound, and developers are also
using it for other things that don't need the blazing speed of the main
memory (which AI and physics do need, and do use). I believe Waverace uses
it to keep the main menu in memory, so there is not another load time (like
there is on most PS2 games) when you end a level and go back to the menu.
Steven Hurdle
>> > > > developers are restricted to certain boundaries when programming in
>> > > > direct x.... Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of
>> > > > programming that the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all
>> those
>> > > > resources to be used.
At least with the Xbox the system software they're using is largely
included on the game disc and not in the hardware, which accomplishes two
things: games will not have overhead in place that they don't take
advantage of because they're free to cut it down to just the sub-set that
they use, and they're always using the latest and most advanced libraries
if they choose to.
More importantly, thanks to standard hardware and games that go through
the system, compatibility with subsequent Microsoft consoles seems to be
assured without the need for emulation.
|||Steven Hurdle|||
Scott
<exa...@nohotmailspam.com> wrote:
> According to developers the only difference between code writen for the
> Xbox and code written for a PC is a few header file definitions.
>
Which means the games can be brought to the PC quite easily. I'm sure
nVidia will release a Geforce card on par (or most likely better) than
the chip they have in the Xbox. I also suspect some clever programmer
is going to figure out how to get those Xbox games working on a PC.
Martin Wilson
wrote:
>
>Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of
>>>> programming that the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all
those
>>>> resources to be used.
>>
>>That's not true. Developers are entirely free to "code to the
metal"
>>with Xbox.
>
>Trust me, its true. Ive seen such coding in action. Know much about
direct
>x? I know a large deal of it. Direct X programming is shutting the
>developers off from a LOT of the hardware resources.
>
Yeah I've said this all along the worst thing about the xbox is
microsoft having anything to do with it. The so called Microsoft xbox
direct x technology is merely a pathetic middle layer of software that
serves no purpose but to waste memory and speed. If all xboxes have
the same hardware why not program it directly for better results.I
have no understanding why direct x which seems to me ideal for
compatibility between many different video cards has been applied to a
console that has a uniform graphics chipset on all models. The code is
written for direct x which then interprets it for sending it to the
nvidia graphics hardware.
Nvidia provide a superb graphics processor, Intel provide a pretty
damn respectable cpu and microsoft supply a crap windows 2000 kernel
OS with performance killing direct x I know which I think is the
weakest link.
Jim Barber
existing GeForce 3 surpasses it...
"Scott" <scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:171120010119101101%scot...@bigfoot.com...
D2³
> At least with the Xbox the system software they're using is largely
>included on the game disc and not in the hardware, which accomplishes two
>things: games will not have overhead in place that they don't take
>advantage of because they're free to cut it down to just the sub-set that
>they use, and they're always using the latest and most advanced libraries
>if they choose to.
You missed the point though. Im talking about the hardware capabilites the
xbox has and how direct x has confined developers to a small percentage of
that overall resource.. So you pay a lot of money for something really
powerful, only to find out that the programming method used to develop games
is insufficient and will never be able to harness the full ability of the
hardware, or even come close to that point.
slapkicksy
it
> it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit somewhere
PC
Shadow
"Danootł" <buhf...@nospam.danoot.com> wrote in message
news:3BF5E2D1...@nospam.danoot.com...
8-pass technique used with Gamecube.
--
Small Sig vers. 1.4.2
Kuragari no Hateshiganai no Sensei
Shadow> What the hell's Di Gi Charat about, anyway?
<Shadow> I keep thinking it's Digimon
<ZanoK`> its about 3 minutes
<Saber> everything and nothing
<Saber> all at once
<Saber> episode 4 is entitled "What the hell is that?"
"Shadow, I never really thought you were a fur, just a slacker"
-Doppelganger, Cynics Live
Links
E-mail Address
teris...@hotmail.com
My Personal Archive
http://www.geocities.com/shadow_archive/
Current Obsessions (in no particular order)
Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
Mario Kart: Super Circuit
Xenogears
Final Fantasy Tactics
Grandia 2
Ayla from Chrono Trigger (You guys know the drill)
Brandon
>
> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1,
There's no need for DD 5.1 when you have DTS 5.1 (like in NHL 2002 and SSX
Tricky).
> ethernet, a hard
> drive,
Those both come to America in spring 2002 (they have both been out in Japan
for months and months now) but you can play games like Tony Hawk 3 online
right now with a USB broadband modem or USB ethernet adapter.
> and good games.
PS2 has more good games than any of the other systems.
Danoot³
meet the super nintendo.
ahah!
Danoot
me
Bleh! Also, after playing the Xbox, PS2 doesn't even come close
as the rendering is soooo sweet!
"Danootł" <buhf...@nospam.danoot.com> wrote in message news:3BF63FEC...@nospam.danoot.com...
stop
DT heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
>"pd" <p...@pdhouse.com> wrote in message
>news:tvbhrm1...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
>> > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>>
>> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
>> drive, and good games.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "D2³" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote in
The Ricketts
> > ethernet, a hard
> > drive,
>
> Those both come to America in spring 2002 (they have both been out in
Japan
> for months and months now) but you can play games like Tony Hawk 3 online
> right now with a USB broadband modem or USB ethernet adapter.
If you are talking about the eventual appearance of broadband and a
harddrive for the PS2, then you're not thinking. Any developer is going to
think twice before adding broadband support to his game on the PS2.
Developers know that add-on devices at best attain a market saturation of
15% of the consoles. Why take the time for extra coding if only AT BEST 15%
of your audience is going to use the feature. The X-Box is not limited in
this regard. It has broadband capabilities out of the box. A developer
knows that 100% of his audience will have the ability to use broadband
support and the Harddrive. Greg.
D2³
>Nvidia provide a superb graphics processor, Intel provide a pretty
>damn respectable cpu and microsoft supply a crap windows 2000 kernel
>OS with performance killing direct x I know which I think is the
>weakest link.
Without a doubt. I agree totally. The xbox could have been a great
contender. It is the programming methods which make the games adequate at
best.
Gene Poole
>
> Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of
> >>> programming that the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all those
> >>> resources to be used.
> >
> >That's not true. Developers are entirely free to "code to the metal"
> >with Xbox.
>
> Trust me, its true. Ive seen such coding in action. Know much about direct
> x? I know a large deal of it. Direct X programming is shutting the
> developers off from a LOT of the hardware resources.
>
> >
> >>> Think of this xbox this way.... humans only use 15% of their full brain
> >>> capacity, even at the genius level.
> >
> >That's a myth.
>
> "Mary, mary quite contrary..." Read up on it sometime. Reality is not a
> myth.
He's right. It's a misunderstanding. we all use all of our brain, but
we're only using 10 - 15% of it at any given time. But every area comes
into play at some time or another.
--
Gene Poole ł
We are merely tenants, with nothing to brag about, while boasting of the
World eating out of our hands. Never looking down at our blood and mud
caked fingers and the cracked smiles on our masks.
-Lunar
"Mud Face"
Sam Altersitzł
<gric...@woh.rr.com> attempted to sound witty, but instead came out
sounding like this... :
>If you are talking about the eventual appearance of broadband and a
>harddrive for the PS2, then you're not thinking. Any developer is going to
>think twice before adding broadband support to his game on the PS2.
>Developers know that add-on devices at best attain a market saturation of
>15% of the consoles. Why take the time for extra coding if only AT BEST 15%
>of your audience is going to use the feature. The X-Box is not limited in
>this regard. It has broadband capabilities out of the box. A developer
>knows that 100% of his audience will have the ability to use broadband
>support and the Harddrive. Greg.
Not really, for the 100% of the audience being able to use the
broadband capabilities. While 100% of the CONSOLES will be able to
support the broadband, not 100% of the USERS will have it.
Every PC has the ability to use broadband. Just get a Ethernet card,
and a broadband ISP, and there you go. Evey Xbox comes with the
network ability built in, and an Ethernet port built in. However,
broadband is simply not available everyewhere you go.
I live 10 minutes from Philadelphia, PA, and I have broadband. Go 10
minutes south of me, and you'll have a hard time getting it, without
paying through the nose.
Broadband only has a home Internet market saturation of about
10%-15%...which, ironicaly, is the same market saturation that most
non-essential console add ons have. When averaging it like that, it
means that only 10-15 out of every 100 people who own a console will
buy a non-essential add on. It also means that only 10-15 people out
of every 100 that uses the Internet has broadband. It's safe to
assume the number of people who have Xboxes and broadband access,
isn't going to be substantially higher than the national average of
homes with broadband access. Maybe 25% instead.
Broadband prices, and limited availablitly, are what make the market
saturation so small. I pay $45 a month for broadband, and it was only
$40 a month until my last bill. Broadband prices are going up,
instead of down. Add in the MS pay-per-month strategy that will most
likely get implimented, and you'll be paying $55, or more, for
broadband Xbox gameplay (assuming MS goes as low as $10 a month).
If you were a game publisher, would you spend the time to put in
something that potentially 25% of the user base will use? Unless MS
is planning on making a broadband MSN push, and pushing that MSN
service onto the Xbox community, don't expect too many games to take
advantage of the broadband until it can be seen how many Xbox owners
actually take advantage of it.
------
Samł
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard.
Be evil.
-Saying on a friend's T-shirt, author unkown to me.
The Ricketts
> >If you are talking about the eventual appearance of broadband and a
> >harddrive for the PS2, then you're not thinking. Any developer is going
to
> >think twice before adding broadband support to his game on the PS2.
> >Developers know that add-on devices at best attain a market saturation of
> >15% of the consoles. Why take the time for extra coding if only AT BEST
15%
> >of your audience is going to use the feature. The X-Box is not limited
in
> >this regard. It has broadband capabilities out of the box. A developer
> >knows that 100% of his audience will have the ability to use broadband
> >support and the Harddrive. Greg.
>
> Not really, for the 100% of the audience being able to use the
> broadband capabilities. While 100% of the CONSOLES will be able to
> support the broadband, not 100% of the USERS will have it.
Uh, that goes without saying dork. Of course I live in a town of 50,000,
and everyone here has broadband if they want it. Your excess verbage in no
way contradicts what I said. Greg.
stenciL
"D2ł" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote:
> Nah, the GC has more to offeras far as game quality and fun are concerned...
> and that is the main object in video games.
Uh, how many games are out for Gamecube?
> I think those who own a PS2 and a GC basically have all bases covered, right
> down to the DVD abilities. The unsuccesful xbox launch is going to hurt
> Microsoft for the Christmas holidays for certain.
I agree somewhat, but I'm a technology whore and have all 3.
Sam Altersitzł
>Uh, that goes without saying dork. Of course I live in a town of 50,000,
>and everyone here has broadband if they want it. Your excess verbage in no
>way contradicts what I said. Greg.
Yeah, my town has around 50,000-75,000 residents as well. And they
can all have broadband if they want it, but those that have Internet
access mostly use 56k. Even in areas where broadband is available, it
isn't widely used.
So if less than 100% of the Xbox owners have broadband, or can get it
where they live, then how does a publisher know that 100% of their
audience can take advantage of the broadband capabilities?
Since broaband home use is only 10%-15% of the total home Internet
market share, it's kind of idiotic to assume everyone who buys an Xbox
will have broadband.
So essentially I did contradict you. Since less than 100% of the Xbox
users will have broadband, the developers cannot assume that 100% of
their audience will be able to take advantage of it. " A developer
knows that 100% of his audience will have the ability to use broadband
support" is what you said. Developers can be assured of the hard
drive use, but they can in no way assume that every single Xbox owner
has the ability to use the broadband support. In fact, they have to
actually assume betwen 10%-15% being able to use it.
Since broadband is only offered in a limited area, NOT everyone can
support the broadband capabilities, even if they want to.
It's like saying that since a lot of people in my town fly on
business, we should have acces to an airport in our town, instead of
having to go to Philly's airport.
Even the networking option isn't absolute, if the Xbox owner is the
only person he knows with an Xbox. Who is he supposed to link up
with?
The only thing that developers can be 100% assured of, with the Xbox,
is the hard drive support. No other option on the Xbox is a given.
They can program the games in 480p mode, but not every Xbox owner will
have a HDTV. They can program the game with 5.1 surround sound, but
not every Xbox owner will have a digital home theater set up. They
can program the game to take advantage of the broadband Internet
access, but not every Xbox owner will have broadband Internet access.
By your logic, developers can assume that 100% of Xbox owners have
broadband, HDTV, and a digital home theater set up, which is ludicrous
to assume.
Why not have the Xbox come with the component cables, and digital
optical audio cables (Advanced AV pack), if 100% of the Xbox users
will have HDTV and home theater set up? Why make those things a
non-essential add on? Obviously, Microsoft knows that less than 100%
of the buyers of the console will have these things, and the vast
majority will not have these things.
Developers really have to assume the same thing with broadband: the
majority of Xbox owners will not have broadband Internet access.
Thus " A developer knows that 100% of his audience will have the
ability to use broadband support" is totally false.
Brandon
> broadband capabilities. While 100% of the CONSOLES will be able to
> support the broadband, not 100% of the USERS will have it.
>
> Every PC has the ability to use broadband. Just get a Ethernet card,
> and a broadband ISP, and there you go. Evey Xbox comes with the
> network ability built in, and an Ethernet port built in. However,
> broadband is simply not available everyewhere you go.
And even if it is available and you have it, you will still need a router
unless you want to be switching wires around between your computer and console
all the time.
The Ricketts
"Sam Altersitzł" <unclet...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3bf6c16c.9171565@news...
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:51:12 GMT, "The Ricketts"
> <gric...@woh.rr.com> attempted to sound witty, but instead came out
> sounding like this... :
>
> >Uh, that goes without saying dork. Of course I live in a town of 50,000,
> >and everyone here has broadband if they want it. Your excess verbage in
no
> >way contradicts what I said. Greg.
>
> Yeah, my town has around 50,000-75,000 residents as well. And they
> can all have broadband if they want it, but those that have Internet
> access mostly use 56k. Even in areas where broadband is available, it
> isn't widely used.
>
You must have an ego the size of your big 'ol melon-head. I'm not going to
waste my time reading all that crap you just wrote. You ever been through
any logic or writing classes? Obviously they never taught you that getting
to the point is a must to maintain any interest in your writing, and that
more isn't necessarily better. Let me tell you what you meant to say, and
then I'll explain how dumb you really are. Your trying to say that
broadband doesn't matter and so no developer should write a game for it.
Buzz, wrong, you dope. I logged more than a thousand hours playing Tribes
on the PC, liked it so much that I upgraded to a cable modem to kick ass
more effectively. Someone makes an excellent X-box that game that utlizes
broadband, which they're more likely to do because of broadband out of the
box, then people will upgrade to broadband if available. Put that in your
pipe and smoke it, retard. Greg.
Scott
Steven Hurdle <ya...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> At least with the Xbox the system software they're using is largely
> included on the game disc and not in the hardware, which accomplishes two
> things: games will not have overhead in place that they don't take
> advantage of because they're free to cut it down to just the sub-set that
> they use, and they're always using the latest and most advanced libraries
> if they choose to.
>
I believe the DirectX API's are stored in ROM in the box itself.
Otherwise they'd have a hell of a time using DirectShow to play DVDs,
since DVD movies don't inclode that part of DirectX.
> More importantly, thanks to standard hardware and games that go through
> the system, compatibility with subsequent Microsoft consoles seems to be
> assured without the need for emulation.
>
But it also keeps programmers from banging the hardware to get the most
out of it. Since the thing is running on top of the NT Kernal it won't
let you hit the hardware directly. That's a bit of a hinderance to the
programmer. Picture the scenario: "Wow, I found this great way to speed
up framerates if I twiddle these registers...Oh, the API won't let me.
Nevermind".
Scott
wrote:
> "trankscuzzball" <tranksc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns915BB9DB2B18Ftr...@198.99.146.10...
> > Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
> unless of course you want things like Dolby Digital 5.1, ethernet, a hard
> drive, and good games.
>
DD 5.1 can be used in games. At least during cut scenes and the like.
Give 'em enough time and some clever programmers may figure out how to
do it in game. Spending $30 or so for ethernet/56k modem isn't too bad.
M$ seems hell bent on excluding the majority of folks who don't have
broadband. As for the hard drive, it's a nice little way of sneaking in
OS patches, caching games and saving. BUT, seeing as how hard drives
are a wee bit more delicate than memory cards there's more of a chance
of the drive heads crashing. I mean this is a console right? How gently
do you think it'll be treated? Plus, what happens in the middle of a
game when your drive runs out of swap/save space? Does a nice menu come
up telling you that you can't save or does it just delete things it
thinks you won't miss? On to your last point...It's a matter of
personal opinion about what makes a good game.
Scott
<sfrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> listen to me fuck nut, the xbox is a gamming console ass-hole. and thats it
> it is NOT a pc but a gaming console, so take your bull-shit somewhere
> elseLOL
>
It's a PC disguised as a console. PIII, nvidia chip, NT Kernal,
DirectX. Sounds like a PC to me. Look at it this way, if the Xbox
doesn't do so well all those developers have a fallback since they can
bring their code over to the PC fairly easily.
Scott
<gric...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> If you are talking about the eventual appearance of broadband and a
> harddrive for the PS2, then you're not thinking. Any developer is going to
> think twice before adding broadband support to his game on the PS2.
> Developers know that add-on devices at best attain a market saturation of
> 15% of the consoles. Why take the time for extra coding if only AT BEST 15%
> of your audience is going to use the feature. The X-Box is not limited in
> this regard. It has broadband capabilities out of the box. A developer
> knows that 100% of his audience will have the ability to use broadband
> support and the Harddrive. Greg.
>
But 100% of the XBox owners won't have broadband so that cuts the
chances of the feature being used way down. So why code for it if say
only 15% of Xbox owners are lucky enough to have broadband?
Scott
<gric...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> You must have an ego the size of your big 'ol melon-head. I'm not going to
> waste my time reading all that crap you just wrote. You ever been through
> any logic or writing classes? Obviously they never taught you that getting
> to the point is a must to maintain any interest in your writing, and that
> more isn't necessarily better. Let me tell you what you meant to say, and
> then I'll explain how dumb you really are. Your trying to say that
> broadband doesn't matter and so no developer should write a game for it.
> Buzz, wrong, you dope. I logged more than a thousand hours playing Tribes
> on the PC, liked it so much that I upgraded to a cable modem to kick ass
> more effectively. Someone makes an excellent X-box that game that utlizes
> broadband, which they're more likely to do because of broadband out of the
> box, then people will upgrade to broadband if available. Put that in your
> pipe and smoke it, retard. Greg.
>
I can see it now. Little Johnny asking mom if she'll shell out and
extra $45 a month so he can play games online with broadband. Yeah,
that'll go over well...
Steven Hurdle
>I can see it now. Little Johnny asking mom if she'll shell out and
>extra $45 a month so he can play games online with broadband. Yeah,
>that'll go over well...
Depends on where you live, in Canada broadband's dirt cheap, typically
$35-40 a month Canadian (the equivalent of $22-25 U.S. a month) for a
dynamic-IP connection (typically add $10 CDN, $6.50 U.S., a month to
upgrade to a static IP and for each additional IP). Broadband here is
cheaper than a dial-up ISP and a second phone line.
|||Steven Hurdle|||
Foxbat
> But it also keeps programmers from banging the hardware to get the most
> out of it. Since the thing is running on top of the NT Kernal it won't
> let you hit the hardware directly. That's a bit of a hinderance to the
> programmer. Picture the scenario: "Wow, I found this great way to speed
> up framerates if I twiddle these registers...Oh, the API won't let me.
> Nevermind".
Picture this scenario: Ok, I'm such a smart ass. I tweaked these registers
and things are really flying.... Oops, what! Blue Screen O Death!! I didn't
mean to do that! 99% of BOSD in Win9x system can contribute to some badly
written drivers and softwares that access hardware directly.
Foxbat
The Ricketts
the
> > box, then people will upgrade to broadband if available. Put that in
your
> > pipe and smoke it, retard. Greg.
> >
> I can see it now. Little Johnny asking mom if she'll shell out and
> extra $45 a month so he can play games online with broadband. Yeah,
> that'll go over well...
Wrong again, butt-pop. X-box, unlike the Gamecube, is not targeted at
Little Johnny. The X-box is targeted at the 16+ age group. Take another
shot nimrod, I love slamming your head repeatedly against the wall. Greg.
The Ricketts
> > support and the Harddrive. Greg.
> >
> But 100% of the XBox owners won't have broadband so that cuts the
> chances of the feature being used way down. So why code for it if say
> only 15% of Xbox owners are lucky enough to have broadband?
Possibly you live in a freaking swamp, toad. See my above reply, I'm not
going to bother responding to this malodorous line of reasoning twice.
Greg.
Sam Altersitzł
>You must have an ego the size of your big 'ol melon-head. I'm not going to
>waste my time reading all that crap you just wrote. You ever been through
>any logic or writing classes? Obviously they never taught you that getting
>to the point is a must to maintain any interest in your writing, and that
>more isn't necessarily better. Let me tell you what you meant to say, and
>then I'll explain how dumb you really are. Your trying to say that
>broadband doesn't matter and so no developer should write a game for it.
>Buzz, wrong, you dope. I logged more than a thousand hours playing Tribes
>on the PC, liked it so much that I upgraded to a cable modem to kick ass
>more effectively. Someone makes an excellent X-box that game that utlizes
>broadband, which they're more likely to do because of broadband out of the
>box, then people will upgrade to broadband if available. Put that in your
>pipe and smoke it, retard. Greg.
Ok, dick-snot. You want nice and easily digestible for those few
remaining brain cells of yours? Here you go.
Less than 100% of all Xbox owners have, or will have, broadband
Internet access.
Therefore, developers cannot "know that 100% of their target
audience," that target audience being all Xbox owners, can utilize the
broadband support.
When something is less than 100%, it does not equal 100%. They did
teach you that in remedial math, right?
Since not all Xbox owners have, or will have, broadband, the number of
Xbox owners the developers can "know" about utilizing it is less than
100%.
Take your head out of your ass, and try and realize that developers
will not "know" that every Xbox user has the ability to utilize the
broadband access. Not having broadband Internet service means you
can't have access to broadband Internet usage.
The Ricketts
utlizes
> >broadband, which they're more likely to do because of broadband out of
the
> >box, then people will upgrade to broadband if available. Put that in
your
> >pipe and smoke it, retard. Greg.
> Xbox owners the developers can "know" about utilizing it is less than
> 100%.
>
> Take your head out of your ass, and try and realize that developers
> will not "know" that every Xbox user has the ability to utilize the
> broadband access. Not having broadband Internet service means you
> can't have access to broadband Internet usage.
Bullshit, shit-for-brains. What side of the Congo do you live in? Nearly
everyone in the US has access to broadband now. See what I wrote above, you
myopic clown. Get a good title out there that shines with broadband
multiplayer and people will sign up for broadband access. And no people
won't have to ask their mommies to sign up like some other Nintendo-clown
supposed. This machine is targeted at the 16 years and above crowd.
YES!!! Eat-that!!! Oh, you're so creamed!!! You're pathetic!! I'm
Great!!! Greg.
Kickaha
>
> we all know the xbox isnt a pc.... it couldnt live up to the
> graphical power of a pc.
Hmm, if the Xbox couldn't live up to the "graphical power" of
a PC, then neither could the GameCube or PS2. It's a wonder
the PC hasn't taken over the videogaming world.
deadsoul
the GC and PS2 can - but the PC has not taken over the world of video
gaming due to a few things - least of all its about 10 times more
expensive...
Kickaha
>
> You missed the point though. Im talking about the hardware capabilites the
> xbox has and how direct x has confined developers to a small percentage of
> that overall resource..
"Small percentage?" What would that be, 13%? Do you even know
what you're talking about?
> So you pay a lot of money for something really
> powerful, only to find out that the programming method used to develop games
> is insufficient and will never be able to harness the full ability of the
> hardware, or even come close to that point.
Ah I see, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kickaha
>
> Kickaha wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, if the Xbox couldn't live up to the "graphical power" of
> > a PC, then neither could the GameCube or PS2. It's a wonder
> > the PC hasn't taken over the videogaming world.
>
> the GC and PS2 can - but the PC has not taken over the world of video
> gaming due to a few things - least of all its about 10 times more
> expensive...
So what you're saying is, the GC and PS2 can live up to the
"graphical power" of a PC, but the Xbox, because it is so
vastly inferior to the GC and PS2, can't.
I get it now. Thanks for the update.
deadsoul
i was agreeing with you fucknut - the GC and PS2 cant live up to the PC
just as the xbox cant...
my typo - very sorry - but still - i would have thought your original
question was easily answered...
annafanatic
series CISC from sIntel. The suXBox isn't a gaming console, it's a
portable desktop gaming machine that shitloads of peeps have been
using for years. It's only a matter of days before someone finds a
way to emulate the suXBox and properly rip the games. suXBox=POS.
On 17 Nov 2001 00:15:18 GMT, tranksc...@yahoo.com (trankscuzzball)
wrote:
>Playstation 2 is looking more and more like the way to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>"D2³" <laug...@yoursorryass.com> wrote in
>news:1KgJ7.89844$XA5.15...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com:
>
>>
>>>
>>>If it is, then why do the gamecube games look as good or (as some
>>>people have said) seem to perform better than the xbox? Will the xbox
>>>eventually sort itself out and show its apparent potential suggested by
>>>this site?
>>>
>>
>> By numbers, the xbox has more power. Why dont the games look any better
>> than PS2 or GC?
>>
>> The answer is simple. All programming is done under Direct X. Game
>> developers are restricted to certain boundaries when programming in
>> direct x.... Thus the xbox has all this power, but the method of
>> programming that the xbox is compatible with will NEVER allow all those
>> resources to be used.
>>
>> Think of this xbox this way.... humans only use 15% of their full brain
>> capacity, even at the genius level. Direct X, being used to its fullest
>> ability, does not use all of the xbox's resources. You can thank
>> Microsoft pride for that. The xbox COULD have pushed gaming to a new
>> level, but microsoft programming protocols are nowhere near as advanced
>> as the computer hardware is.
>>
>> Lastly, I've been hearing nothing but bad news about the xbox from
>> classmates at college and reports in general.... It seems that people
>> were expecting more out of it, feeling ripped off.
Kickaha
>
> Kickaha wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is, the GC and PS2 can live up to the
> > "graphical power" of a PC, but the Xbox, because it is so
> > vastly inferior to the GC and PS2, can't.
> >
> > I get it now. Thanks for the update.
>
> i was agreeing with you fucknut - the GC and PS2 cant live up to the PC
> just as the xbox cant...
Well then you're not agreeing with me, because I believe the
GC and PS2, as well as the Xbox can more than live up to the
PC due to their particular strengths and because they are
streamlined to do one thing and one thing only -- play games.
The PC is a fine game machine in itself, in fact I spend the
majority of my time playing PC games these days, but certain
games you find on the next-gen systems just wouldn't be the
same on the PC.
deadsoul
Kickaha wrote:
>
> deadsoul wrote:
> >
> > Kickaha wrote:
> >
> > > So what you're saying is, the GC and PS2 can live up to the
> > > "graphical power" of a PC, but the Xbox, because it is so
> > > vastly inferior to the GC and PS2, can't.
> > >
> > > I get it now. Thanks for the update.
> >
> > i was agreeing with you fucknut - the GC and PS2 cant live up to the PC
> > just as the xbox cant...
>
> Well then you're not agreeing with me, because I believe the
> GC and PS2, as well as the Xbox can more than live up to the
> PC due to their particular strengths and because they are
> streamlined to do one thing and one thing only -- play games.
>
perhaps now the xbox gc and ps2 are on a par with the pc - but in 1
years time the pc's spec will have improved - the xbox, gc and ps2
wont...
> The PC is a fine game machine in itself, in fact I spend the
> majority of my time playing PC games these days, but certain
> games you find on the next-gen systems just wouldn't be the
> same on the PC.
no - given enough time they would be better - point in case is halo -
online play and better frame rate coming to you on the PC...
Kickaha
>
> Kickaha wrote:
> >
> > Well then you're not agreeing with me, because I believe the
> > GC and PS2, as well as the Xbox can more than live up to the
> > PC due to their particular strengths and because they are
> > streamlined to do one thing and one thing only -- play games.
> >
>
> perhaps now the xbox gc and ps2 are on a par with the pc - but in 1
> years time the pc's spec will have improved - the xbox, gc and ps2
> wont...
Well, since I was talking about "now", and nowhere in my
statement was I talking about what will be happening in a
year or more from now, my statement stands.
Come on dead, let's not quibble over such petty arguments.
Even the Dreamcast has some mighty fine graphics in many
of its games, so of course the Xbox, GC and PS2 are going
to look even better, giving the PC a very good run for its
money. Most people don't have a top-of-the-line PC anyway,
complete with GeForce 3 card, so for them, one of the new
consoles would surely blow away anything their current PC
can do.
deadsoul
for the time being you are right - consoles offer a better level of
hardware and graphical power... but still doesn't change the fact that
in less than 2 years (not even half way thru these consoles life cycle)
affordable PCs will be able to out that will be technically superior to
even the latest consoles...
Kickaha
>
> for the time being you are right - consoles offer a better level of
> hardware and graphical power... but still doesn't change the fact that
> in less than 2 years (not even half way thru these consoles life cycle)
> affordable PCs will be able to out that will be technically superior to
> even the latest consoles...
Hmmm, you're still talking about the future even though
that was never a part of my original statement. Of course
you're correct. In a year or so, PCs will be more powerful.
And in a year or two after that, new consoles may arrive
which are even better. A year or so later, PCs will be
better once again. And a bit later, even more powerful
consoles will arrive. During this time, cars will become
even more economical when it comes to fuel. New toothpastes
will arrive that protect teeth against decay better. A
new breed of cat may be created which dog lovers may even
like.
But I was talking about now. We could go on and on about
the future. That is, if Bin Laden doesn't find a way to
blow us all up first.
Zackman
> perhaps now the xbox gc and ps2 are on a par with the pc - but in 1
> years time the pc's spec will have improved - the xbox, gc and ps2
> wont...
So what? This has been the case in every recent generation of console games.
The PSX looked like shit next to PCs at the end of its life and it still
sold millions of games. The PCs that will look better than the
Xbox/PS2/GameCube in a year will be high-end $2,000+ machines with GeForce 3
Ultras or whatever, which will be owned by less than 5% of PC users. Console
games are ALWAYS a bigger market than PC games, and that won't change in a
year or three or 10.
> no - given enough time they would be better - point in case is halo -
> online play and better frame rate coming to you on the PC...
LOL, another dumbass with the "better framerate" argument. The framerate
might be better (IF you have a high-end rig that costs more than 5x what the
Xbox does) but you will not have the same level of detail in the visuals in
terms of high-poly models, frames of animation, detail in textures, lack of
noticable mip-mapping, reflective bump-mapped surfaces, etc. and so on. In
terms of the single-player experience, you're getting the trimmed down
version of Halo. Online? Sure. But there are a million FPS out there with
online components that are mediocre or worse. Will Halo be any different?
Time will tell.
-Z-
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Sam Altersitzł
>Bullshit, shit-for-brains. What side of the Congo do you live in?
I have broadband, moron.
> Nearly
>everyone in the US has access to broadband now.
Which is why the market saturation is only around 10%-15% of the total
US home Internet market share? And why, then, can just going a few
miles outside of a city make broadband unavailable? I mean, if
'nearly everyone' in the US has access to broadband, why hasn't it
taken over market share dominance?
>See what I wrote above, you
>myopic clown.
Yes, another moronic post.
>Get a good title out there that shines with broadband
>multiplayer and people will sign up for broadband access.
Ah, now you change it from people already having broadband, to people
signing up for it if a good multi-player game that supports it comes
out. I see.
So they pay $50 for the game, and then another $40-$50, or more, a
month, plus the instilation fee, for broadband, mainly for use with
one game, plus however much MS will charge for the Xbox online access.
So $50 for the game, plus $75-$150 for instilation of broadband
(unless there is a special of no charge instilation), plus $40-$50, or
more, a month, plus MS' online Xbox charge (probably $10 a month).
So you're looking at people spending at least $100 just for this one
major must-have online multiplayer game, up to $260, or more, to have
it. And then they'll be paying the online charges per month after
that as well. Do you know a lot of people willing to pay upwards of
$260 for just one game?
Think about it, broadband doesn't appeal to everyone right now. It
certainly isn't worth it to those people who mainly check email, and
maybe look at a few web pages now and then. *I* use it for file
downloads and games, but a lot of people don't use the Internet for
much more than checking email. And since dial-up is around 1/2 the
price of broadband , it is the more affordably choice for many people
out there.
> And no people
>won't have to ask their mommies to sign up like some other Nintendo-clown
>supposed. This machine is targeted at the 16 years and above crowd.
So the 16 year olds who work at McDonalds can afford to pay $100-$260,
or more, for one game, plus the $40-$50 or more per month after that?
And they have the authorization to allow the broadband company to come
into their house and drill for cable, or whatever that particular
company needs to do to install the broadband? They make minimum wage
for God's sake. They're lucky to make $150 a check, and not have it
all spent by the end of the weekend. They don't own the house, they
can't decide to make decisions for the entire household.
Great logic there.
>YES!!! Eat-that!!! Oh, you're so creamed!!! You're pathetic!! I'm
>Great!!! Greg.
Yes, you're so great you can't even remember basic writing skills such
as not putting your signature in the main body of your letters/posts.
Boy, do I feel 0wn3d, let me tell you.
The Ricketts
> >YES!!! Eat-that!!! Oh, you're so creamed!!! You're pathetic!! I'm
> >Great!!! Greg.
>
> Yes, you're so great you can't even remember basic writing skills such
> as not putting your signature in the main body of your letters/posts.
> Boy, do I feel 0wn3d, let me tell you.
What the hell are you talking about? You are so out of it. Stop smoking
the doobie butt-pop and join the human race. Greg.
Scott
<Fox...@no.com> wrote:
Thank you. You've just illustrated my point. No gaming console needs an
OS Kernal running under it to even cause a blue screen. The system is
running ONE program (a game) and nothing more. Consoles are the one
time that banging the hardware is, and should always be encouraged.
After all the hardware registers and such aren't going to change.
Scott
<gric...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Wrong again, butt-pop. X-box, unlike the Gamecube, is not targeted at
> Little Johnny. The X-box is targeted at the 16+ age group. Take another
> shot nimrod, I love slamming your head repeatedly against the wall. Greg.
>
Juvenile rhetoric aside, there are plenty of people in the Xbos's
target audience (according to you) that still can't get or afford
broadband. Note how I didn't resort to any derogatory remarks as you
did and got my point across.
Scott
<gric...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Bullshit, shit-for-brains. What side of the Congo do you live in? Nearly
> everyone in the US has access to broadband now.
>
Hardly. Do a little research on how few locales have access to
braodband before posting your assumptions. Here's an example for you.
Take the Philadelphia area. You can get broadband fairly easily in the
Center City area but as soon as you start moving into the surroundign
suburbs some can get it and some can't. Take a trip to DSL reports and
see for yourself.
deadsoul
your original statement - i was just saying thought the entire life
cycle of a console PCs are more powerful in general (only really less
powerful in the first 6-12 months of the consoles life) - and yes you
are right... life goes on and toothpaste kills more germs...
so the xbox cannot live up to the power of a PC, neither can the GC or
PS2 - given the power of both machines during the life cycle of the
consoles - only now and for a short time the consoles will have the edge
- and soon the PC will out do them...
but to answer you original question - PCs have not taken over the gaming
world because specs change every 6 months and it can be hideously
expensive...
deadsoul
Zackman wrote:
>
> deadsoul wrote:
>
> > perhaps now the xbox gc and ps2 are on a par with the pc - but in 1
> > years time the pc's spec will have improved - the xbox, gc and ps2
> > wont...
>
> So what? This has been the case in every recent generation of console games.
> The PSX looked like shit next to PCs at the end of its life and it still
> sold millions of games. The PCs that will look better than the
> Xbox/PS2/GameCube in a year will be high-end $2,000+ machines with GeForce 3
> Ultras or whatever, which will be owned by less than 5% of PC users. Console
> games are ALWAYS a bigger market than PC games, and that won't change in a
> year or three or 10.
>
thanks for repeating what i was saying, using different words...
the original question was if the PC is so powerful why has it not taken
over the gaming world - what you have said reiterates what i was saying
- and both of us are correct...
well done...
> > no - given enough time they would be better - point in case is halo -
> > online play and better frame rate coming to you on the PC...
>
> LOL, another dumbass with the "better framerate" argument. The framerate
> might be better (IF you have a high-end rig that costs more than 5x what the
> Xbox does) but you will not have the same level of detail in the visuals in
> terms of high-poly models, frames of animation, detail in textures, lack of
> noticable mip-mapping, reflective bump-mapped surfaces, etc. and so on. In
ok - explain why the pc cannot handle these features of halo?
> terms of the single-player experience, you're getting the trimmed down
> version of Halo. Online? Sure. But there are a million FPS out there with
> online components that are mediocre or worse. Will Halo be any different?
> Time will tell.
indeed it will...
Sam Altersitzł
attempted to sound witty, but instead came out sounding like this... :
>Hardly. Do a little research on how few locales have access to
>braodband before posting your assumptions. Here's an example for you.
>Take the Philadelphia area. You can get broadband fairly easily in the
>Center City area but as soon as you start moving into the surroundign
>suburbs some can get it and some can't. Take a trip to DSL reports and
>see for yourself.
Yep. I live just outside of Philly, on the Jersey side. I have
Comcast @Home. Go 3 miles or so South of me and you can't get @Home,
or any DSL service.
In some cases it just skips a town or two, and then lets the next town
have it. It's odd.
Foxbat
You missed the point. It's the program that caused the BOSD not the OS. And
you say the game should handle all the hardware interrupt calls and schedule
the tasks like disc access and all other multitasking stuff? And a game
company can write a better OS than an OS company? You have no idea how much
is involved behind the scene for all those OS chores besides a few register
settings. And without multi-tasking, your game will run like shit.
Foxbat
::Corporal Truespin ł::
"Foxbat" <Fox...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3KuK7.21347$QN6.8...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
You mean a bit like MS is thinking it can create a better console than a
games company! ;)
annafanatic
>
>"Scott" <scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
>You missed the point. It's the program that caused the BOSD not the OS. And
>you say the game should handle all the hardware interrupt calls and schedule
>the tasks like disc access and all other multitasking stuff? And a game
>company can write a better OS than an OS company? You have no idea how much
>is involved behind the scene for all those OS chores besides a few register
>settings. And without multi-tasking, your game will run like shit.
>
>Foxbat
>
It is ALSO the OS(winbloz in this case) AS they don't use protected
memory throughout the OS, causing big headaches.
Foxbat
"annafanatic" <annaf...@cum.com> wrote in message
news:2j2lvtg5e4tjhqm0k...@4ax.com...
Not so in Win2000/XP. The OS kernel is protected.
Foxbat
annafanatic
The kernel memory segment is protected, but the other programs are
not. So that means that lovely code A can flip flop all day long over
code B and cause faults. Yaye, go Micro$oft.
Foxbat
Sounds like the only thing you know is to bash M$. Obviously you know
nothing about OS and other stuff.
Foxbat
Scott
<unclet...@home.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 03:18:59 -0500, Scott <scot...@bigfoot.com>
> attempted to sound witty, but instead came out sounding like this... :
>
> >Hardly. Do a little research on how few locales have access to
> >braodband before posting your assumptions. Here's an example for you.
> >Take the Philadelphia area. You can get broadband fairly easily in the
> >Center City area but as soon as you start moving into the surroundign
> >suburbs some can get it and some can't. Take a trip to DSL reports and
> >see for yourself.
>
> Yep. I live just outside of Philly, on the Jersey side. I have
> Comcast @Home. Go 3 miles or so South of me and you can't get @Home,
> or any DSL service.
>
> In some cases it just skips a town or two, and then lets the next town
> have it. It's odd.
>
It depends on what towns have fiber laid in (for cable) and whether or
not the CO's have DSLAMs (for DSL). That's why it skips around so much.
annafanatic
Awww, did I hit a nerve? Yah, "I know noteen! five nine
nine!"
Scott
<Fox...@no.com> wrote:
> You missed the point. It's the program that caused the BOSD not the OS. And
> you say the game should handle all the hardware interrupt calls and schedule
> the tasks like disc access and all other multitasking stuff? And a game
> company can write a better OS than an OS company? You have no idea how much
> is involved behind the scene for all those OS chores besides a few register
> settings. And without multi-tasking, your game will run like shit.
>
First off, I've been coding for various OS's since 1985. I think I've
gotten a good grip on coding. Compaonies such as Sony, Sega & Nintendo
all have API's for disk access, interrupts and the like. You DON'T need
an OS proper underneath it if you know what your doing. Obviously games
are event driven and do a type of multitasking but nothing so difficult
that it couldn't be done through API's instead of a constricting OS. It
seems to have worked fine for consoles up until the Xbox. And asking
whether a game company can write a better "OS" than MS? That's almost
laughable. My point about regsiters was that one should be allowed to
tweak registers on the hardware (video, sound and that type of thing).
Locking programmers out of that lets them do only what M$ deems is ok.
Suppose they didn't think of a certain technique for some cool effect
(I know, it's nearly impossible to believe DirectX doesn't have every
conceivable effect built in) that could be accomplished by twiddling
some of the nVidia chips registers. Now, since the game that wants to
do this is the only program running it should be allowed to do it. It's
different on a computer where other games, business apps and what have
you could be running. On a console the game you're playing owns the
hardware while it's running. Why deny clever programmers access to it?
Scott
<*fake*cheek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The programmers can do whatever they want. They don't have to use
> Direct X on the Xbox, though obviously the lazier developers will.
>
I thought the dev kit was DX8 only. Alos, how do you get around the NT
Kernel? Just curious.
Ken Stevens
wrote:
Is the XBox's core operation system NT?
Ken
Jim Barber
"Ken Stevens" <kstevens...@scescape.net> wrote in message
news:kstevens-nospam-...@clmasc-as-3-ip-6.atlantic.net...
Y2Bogus
"Jim Barber" <pin...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:OwhL7.124877$WW.77...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Scott
<kstevens-nospam-...@clmasc-as-3-ip-6.atlantic.net>, Ken
Stevens <kstevens...@scescape.net> wrote:
Uh-huh. It runs the Win2k (NT5) kernel.