RE: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consider Linux again.

[Jean-Sebastien Perron]

Wow, Realsoft for Playstation3. I wish it could be possible one day. This is very interesting David.   I was talking about technologies available in 10-15 years from now.   Note : not many people know that assembler, since the past 5 years is now very similar to c++. There is the virtual assembler (like the “Amiga Intent”), and there is the standard assembler that is part script and is object oriented. Ok, the assembler could be the best language if it was redesigned and standardized like modern languages. What I was refering was the assembler of the “Amiga Intent”. But it would be difficult to describe here. I was a tester of the Amiga Intent SDK a while ago.   Closed box is the best thing to code for. And it’s the best for users. Think about the “PC3” or the “PC360” standards. Standard closed box updated every 5 years.   Most of the power of a computer is lost because there is no way for a developer to know what’s inside of the pc. Optimising code is much easier when every once of power are known.   Jean-Sebastien Perron www.neuroworld.ca   De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de David Coombes Envoyé : Friday, September 22, 2006 3:25 PM À : user-list@light.realsoft3d.com Objet : Re: Windows Vista is so Scary, I migh consider Linux again.     -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.   No way. This is way off the list's topic, but there is no way at all a standard PC CPU can compete transistor for transistor in the graphics department of a GPU. Not even close. Not even in viewing distance. GPU's consits of lots of parallel processors. With a CPU you could process 1 or 2 pixels at a time, whereas a GPU can process 24 and upwards at a time. They are processors designed for fundamentally different workloads. It's like saying instead of paying $200,000 on a Ferrari, you spend $200,000 on a JCB, you'll be able to go as fast in the digger. And as for coding a full 3D graphics engine in assembler, that's quite-frankly laughable.     Everything in the computer should be include in a single chip sold for 1000$. Memory,CPU,Sound,VideoAcceleration should be in a single chip. No communication on a mother board except for outside communication.   That's called a system on a chip (SoC). And for a full-fledged computer it's impossible at the moment.There are limits in manufacturing that prevent limitlessly sized processors. You're restricted to a little over 300 million transistors per processor at the moment, before yields become ridiculously low. That'll cover a CPU and GPU from a few years ago in one processor, excluding everything else (modern GPUs take up that much room on their own, ignoring the neccesary megabytes of GDDR). You also have very different technologies for RAM than making processors. Embedded RAM (eDRAM) is mightily expensive.   Ithink, from the gist of the converation which I'm not really following, what you're really after is a clsed-box system. Unlike a PC that can have any number of different parts from different suppliers, you want a computer that's fixed hardware where you don't need lots of drivers etc. to accomodate hugely varying parts. This is something I want to. Best chance for this at the moment looks like being the PlayStation 3. It's a closed box hardware that's supposed to come with Linux installed. That means as a developer on Linux you could target PS3 hardware exactly and not care to be portable to other Linux platforms. That'll elliminate a lot of these supports and conflict issues that plague PCs. Fingers crossed it works and RealSoft comes in a PS3 Linux optimized form!   David Coombes [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ...