|
Interesting and funny reply. -I did a game in 2000 fully in 3D using
DirectX. -That game never functionned equally or
looked the same from computer to computer. -If instead of paying 600$ for a
videocard, you put that money and mathematical power inside the main cpu, you
would not need a 3D videocard. -IF you code the graphics parts in
assembler, you will be faster than with C++->Win->DirectX->Driver
layers. >>That makes me curious about what
your idea of a "computer" is. My idea of a computer is you open it, 1
second later you are presented with a file browser, from there you set up you
drivers and start your application. That’s simple. The problem with the PC is that it is a
bad desing from the start. Everything in the computer should be
include in a single chip sold for 1000$. Memory,CPU,Sound,VideoAcceleration should
be in a single chip. No communication on a mother board except for outside
communication. The standardisation made by DOS and
Windows saved the computer industry. I agree that Linux is crazy witout any
standard. Innovation for me is not just a better version
of something old. The PC is just an upgrade. Ther is no differences
in the desing of computer since 1980. It’s more of the same. Do you think, that software and computer are
easier to use and configure today? If yes, thenwhy putting a single pixel on screen
with directx require a minimum of 75 lines of c++ code
(windows+directxdeviceconfiguration+needtocreatea3Dpolygonwithtexture). Doing the same with assembler require only
3 words in assembler on one line. Coding c++ today is like that : you always
need to open the Help and copy/past code. I do not fully believe all what I said. :
) it’s just an esssay. Jean-Sebastien Perron ------ Original Message ------ Received: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:44:21 AM EDT From: "Jean-Sebastien Perron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Window vista is so CPU hungry. > The user interface is ugly and not of
a functional desing. Have you seen the betas? > There will be so many different
version of Not nearly as bad as Linux in that
regard... at least they all share exactly the same base, which isn't the
case in the Linux world, where you even have multiple kernel implementations
to pick from. > The user interface is more anoying
like MacOSX. I'd wait to see the final product before
making that decision. There's still a chance that they'll get it right
if they get enough complaints from the users. :) > IT's gonna cost me $$$$ just to
update my computer hardware. Well, that will happen sooner or later
anyway :) > There is no tech support from
Microsoft even if you paid for it. There's only one good way to get decent
support from MS, and that isn't feasible for individuals. Definitely not a
feature. :) > That makes me curious about what your idea
of a "computer" is. > It's MicroSoft, they killed the Xbox
without warning. Without warning? > DirectX10 is gonna force hadware
rendering to dominate even more. That's a good thing, especially given the
direction that hardware rendering is going. > HardwareRendering is not the solution,
Software renderer is better, even for > videogames. In 10 years, there will
be no more 3D videocards. Software rendering is much, much too slow
for games. I suspect that in the future, 3D video cards will be
sufficiently general-purpose to replace current processors :) > Software rendering for videogames : > -It's easier to code Maybe for the driver developers... but for
the application programmer, OpenGL is OpenGL whether it's using
hardware or software rendering. > -The same game will look the same on
every computer That's not actually a feature, though it
sounds nice in theory. When a person gets a faster machine, they want
their games to look better. > Do you think one day there will be an
emulator for a complex machine like > PS3 or a PC with windows. Probably, if the market for the
"classic" games is large enough. > I believe the future of pc is: > -A single processor with many RISC
(reduce instruction set) cores with 3 gig > of ram inside the processor. I think we're headed in that general
direction already. :) > -Video and sound will be replaced
only by 2 DAC (digital analog convertor). > I don't think that will happen; they'll
probably have DSP support, and live mixing surround sound will probably
be more popular, leveraging the aforementioned DSP. > -These processor will support java or
c++ directly instead of machine code. > I doubt that as well. It runs counter to
the trend you and I both alluded to above, because it puts MORE
complexity in the processor, which would make a many-cored processors much
less feasible to implement. > -There will be only one processor and
on computer standard desing for > everything earth. I hope not. > -Then the only innovation possible
will be speed of the processor and adding > more core. And that's why. > It's sad this industry is going
nowhere. There has not been any innovations > since the apple2. Been living under a rock lately? De :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Rakesh Malik
|
- Re: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consider Linux... Rakesh Malik
- RE: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consider ... Jean-Sebastien Perron
- Re: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consi... David Coombes
- Re: *** SPAM *** Re: Windows Vista is s... Lee Elliott
- RE: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh c... Jean-Sebastien Perron
- Linux, RealSoft3D, and Cell processor David Coombes
- RE: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consider ... Rakesh Malik
- RE: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consi... Jean-Sebastien Perron
