Hi! |
A|A
(n n)
\_/
I'm having a very awful problem with my mail daemon:
I reveice replies before the original messages, sometimes
MANY replies before the original message. So, I'm avoiding
naming people.
Thus, "someone" wrote, on Nov-12:
> (...) The PC nowadays IS better then a real MSX. Come
> on.. Be hounest (...) But there is nothing wrong with
> being nostalgic and still loving MSX ! But please...
> Technicaly, a PC is much better then MSX (...)
I very hardly use dirty words when I'm talking,
even less when I'm writing, but I have to shout this:
BULLS***!!! _Technically_, PC _cannot_ be better than ANY
machine. It was a big soldering of trash (I'm NOT kidding)
at an obscure IBM lab, made by a technician, one that was
bright enough to say "this thing will be obsolete in three
years, but till then, you will design something to replace
it". Well, no one designed anything to replace it. Indeed,
the burocrats at IBM decided to change its CPU and
re-release it, naming it "XT" ("eXTended"). People easily
noticed what IBM was doing and made XT out of PC just
adding already obsolete 8086 in them. IBM finally decided
to design a personal computer, one that couldn't be
upgraded from old machines, but it was too late, it'd
have to be compatible with PC/XT, and AT was born, a very
big soldering of trash on a dirty soldering of trash on
a big soldering of trash. Yes, I hate PC. Anyone that has
really tried to program it, hates PC. I'm not talking
about ANSI-C programmers, even less Visual Anything users,
I'm talking about REAL HARD-CODERS, those that go to the
core of the systems to turn their souls into gemstones!
Wow!
Okay, okay, a bit more serious. Technically, a
PC/XT/AT/PS/xxx is not better, just bigger and faster.
The difference is subtle, but enough: a "technically"
better system is easier to program, "id est", a coder
can take from it what it wants without having to
painstalkingly deal with conceptual bugs (huh, PCs
have lots of them, from memory to ports). This sounds
like MSX!
A bigger system has "more", period. More colours,
more memory, more space resolution, more sound channels...
But how many time did it take to the first high-resolution
PC games to come out? The first I have seen was "Sim City
2000" that could reach the incredible resolution of
800x600x256, about, how many, four, five years since
such kind of resolutions became commonplace? Have anyone
here ever tried to deal with such resolution? In a PC
without state-of-the-art hardware (I mean VESA 2.0 and
similars, if there are any), it means you have to deal
with 800 x 600 = 480,000 bytes of VRAM, using an access
window of 64 KB!!! In other words, to handle 800x600x256
you have to deal with 7 or 8 areas, moving the access
window (the equivalent of MSX2's "active page") through
them. The result is flickering, slow downs and a lot of
undetectable bugs... until a few hours before release
time! No, PC is technically inferior to all machines I
know (even Atari VCS2600 can beat it, if you think enough).
Have anyone here seen "Robocop"? Remember the 6000 S.U.X.
car commercial, the one with the Tyranosauros Rex? "It's
back, because bigger is better". It seem people didn't get
the message behind that, they are still buying bigger ones,
thinking they are better. Dynosaurs were bigger, dynosaurs
were stronger, dynosaurs starved to death and are extinct...
... Cyberknight, PC slayer...
<Over>
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
