Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (petilon)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Bill Vermillion)
Re: IE on UNIX (Mike Marion)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BSOD and Penis Problems (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BSOD and Penis Problems (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: IE on UNIX (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Giving up on NT ("LP")
Re: Giving up on NT ("LP")
Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm... ("LP")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:16:43 -0800
Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm not the one trolling out a one-trick pony.
What do you mean, "one-trick"? Did you not see my post about
pcAnywhere crashing Windows 2000? FYI, there are 62998 other
"tricks", although I haven't found them all yet.
>>You are justifying this serious bug in
>>Windows 2000 --
>> -- by saying Linux --
>> -- has the same problem too?
>
I see you have modified my question to suit your purposes.
The original question was quite embarrassing to you Windows
advocates, wasn't it? But I am not going to let you get away
with it, so here it is once again, in its original form:
Have you no shame? You are justifying this serious bug in
Windows 2000 -- a product that corporations pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars to Microsoft for -- by saying Linux --
a FREE product -- has the same problem too?
>Not a serious bug; you are trying to make this out
>to be a Showstopper, when it hardly rates listing as a
>Request for Enhancement (IMO).
>You seem to be engaged in serious reality distortion by
>blowing your problem far out of proportion, especially
>in light of the help others here have given you (Linux and
>Windows advocates alike) in getting your system set up
>properly.
Why don't you admit that the Windows boot loader really is
lacking? Not only will Microsoft's boot loader not boot
competing operating systems, their boot loader will not even
boot their own operating systems!
Not taking advantage of the SCSI id is only one of the problems
with the Windows boot loader. For another problem, consider
the fact that it is extremely hard to get their boot loader to
boot Windows 98. If your hard disk already had Win98 on it when
you installed Windows 2000 then you're OK, but installing
Windows 98 on a hard disk that already has Windows 2000 is very
hard. In my case Windows 98 is on my Jaz disk, yet, there is
no easy way (almost impossible) to add an entry to boot.ini to
boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk!
I have researched this issue on Microsoft's website and I have
come to the conclusion that their boot loader is brain-dead.
To boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk, I apparently have to
get the contents of the boot sector of the jaz disk and put it
in a separate file etc. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
If you research these issues and compare with boot loaders of
other operating systems you will come to the same conclusion:
The Windows boot loader is brain-dead.
>>Do you realize decent enterprise operating systems such as
>>Solaris don't have this problem?
>
>Others here have claimed it does... can you explain what
>methods it uses to accomplish this? And how it would have
>handled the install configuration that you had set up when
>you installed Windows 2000?
I have already explained what Windows 2000 could have done --
copy the SCSI miniport driver to the root directory and use
this driver in the boot process. I have now manually setup
Windows 2000 to boot like this. So Windows 2000 Setup program
could easily have done this for me. Instead they made the Setup
program brain-dead too.
(By the way, I found the Setup program will not use the scsi()
syntax even if I turn on all drives when installing Windows
2000.)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:20:15 GMT
HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Todd Kepus writes:
>
> > How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
> > 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
> > higher...
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
> > resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
>
> Why do you find it so hard to believe, Todd? Perhaps you should read
> up on HDTV.
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:45:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul 'Z' Ewande? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Frankly, it probably depicts any big business company I can think of, but
: apparently it's okay to bash just Microsoft, after all, they are the evil
: empire.
Are you trying to say that all large businesses commit fraud, or that
it is OK because, supposedly, everyone else is doing it?
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:28:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill
>Vermillion) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
>> >There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any
>> >plans to put W2K on.
>> And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
>> MS did support - but no longer.
>> Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
>> supported processor families. Down to one now.
>And that one doesn't make sense.
>MS had already done the hard work by getting NT running on 4 different
>processor families. And, if they did their homework up front, it's
>portability should have made it easy to maintain.
Microsoft did the hard work? Hardly! One of the first ports of NT was on
the MIPS platform for the NEC MIPS machine targeted to run NT.
Many felt that NEC made a mistake by designing the machine so that
it would only run MIPS NT and not take into account that it could
also be made to run IRIX if that had been considered.
If I remember my time-line incorrectly - I would apperciate
comments from others who were there at that time - not from those
who read the history of this OS and base their judgements upon those
not always accurate missives.
>Yet they dropped the others. I wonder why? Sure, they probably
>didn't make money on them, but when did MS let P/L get in the way
>of extending their monopoly? It doesn't make sense.
ISTR that NEC pulled out of that market first. They stumbled badly
in the US and their purchase of Packard Bell assuredly did nothing
to help their reputation. Then the PA-RISC port was dropped, and
finally the the Alpha.
>And, before anyone jumps in with stupid comments, I said the same
>thing about Apple with OS X Server. They should have released the
>Intel version IMHO.
Yup. I ran one of it's predecesors NeXTStep 3.x on iNTEL. It
still is probably my all-time favorite OS interface. The clone
interfaces, AfterStep, GnuStep, et al, don't hold a candle to the
real thing IMO. It truly was an interface for all uses - for those
who grew up in the Mac world with the icon interface, the MS users
with the program manager interface, and the pure Unix interface.
All immediately swappable with a click of the button.
Such a nice system.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:53:02 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Journaling, support for >2GB files, larger address space-- those are some
> fundamental changes in the FS. Reguardless if they mount as each other
> (what happens to the journal then? It'll get grossly out of sync if you
> write while loaded in ext2 mode, won't it?) there are fundamental design
> differences between ext2 -> ext3, that's my point.
Actually, IIRC, there's a patch to ext2 that allows >2Gig files. Journalling is
the only major change.. though it's been awhile since I read up on the features
and it might've changed some. Basically ext3 (at least the jist I got from
reading about it) is a log-based journalling FS on top of ext2. If you umount
an ext3 FS, it finishes the log work, so mounting as ext2 will not screw up the
journalling (unless you overwrite or delete the log file). umount the ext2,
remount as ext3 and it starts logging again.
Looking at a thread on the linux-kernel list (see
http://kt.linuxcare.com/kt19991220_47.epl#3 for a synopsis) I see some saying
going back and forth will be simple.. others not, so it's hard to say for sure.
> <Off topic and Genuine curiosity>
> When is Reiserfs due (approximately)?
I don't know the exact date, but I know people who admin large sites that are
using it on dev machines now, and find it rock solid as it is, including
mp3.com. Check http://devlinux.com/projects/reiserfs/ for info.
> What are the caveats of using Reiserfs to ext2?
Completely incompatible FS. Reiser and Software RAID5 don't work together (yet)
since they both do some similar magic in the VFS layer.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Newspaper Editor: "We're looking for a new food critic, someone who doesn't
immediately 'poo-poo' everything he eats."
Homer: "Nah it usually takes a few hours." -- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:55:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 Feb 2000 05:11:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:01:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, there's a new problem; apparently, <APPLET ...>
>> ... </APPLET> is no longer the "preferred" method for adding
>> applets to one's webpages. I'm going to have to research this
>> (it appears to be related to issues regarding the JVM plugins),
>> but this worries me, as it means I as a webpage developer have
>> to do kludgy things again. Yecch.
>
>According to the HTML4 specs, <APPLET> has been deprecated in favour of
><OBJECT>. It doesn't appear that there is anything kludgy about it.
<OBJECT> ??
Well, I'll be. Replaces <IMG>, too.
<OBJECT data="canyon.png" type="image/png">
This is a <EM>closeup</EM> of the Grand Canyon.
</OBJECT>
OBJECTS are also allowed to execute Python scripts (.py), as well.
Powerful stuff. Presumably, it could even include other HTML
files, Active Server Pages, Java Server Pages, Tcl/TK scripts,
and anything else the browser supports.
Of course, the <PARAM> stuff transfers right over, too.
Wow. I learn something new every day. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and of course ActiveX, but one can't have everything :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: BSOD and Penis Problems
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:56:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:06:44 +1000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Jessica69 wrote:
>>
>> Hello Everyone :)
>>
>> My friend Kim said only men with small dicks use Windows. Personally,
>> I watched in amazement as my boyfriends penis shrunk every time BSOD
>> appeared. He was once 9" and now he's 3". I need help fast!!!!! Someone
>> told me that Linux could reverse the problem. Is this true? What can I
>> do?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Jessica 69
>> http://jessica-69.secret-playmates.com
>
>Yes, it's true. Hence "Micro - Soft".
>My penis has been increasing in size daily since I stopped using MS.
Don't tell them that, you'll only get them all excited. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and then they wouldn't be secret anymore
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:01:05 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD and Penis Problems
Jessica69 wrote:
> My friend Kim said only men with small dicks use Windows. Personally,
> I watched in amazement as my boyfriends penis shrunk every time BSOD
> appeared. He was once 9" and now he's 3". I need help fast!!!!! Someone
> told me that Linux could reverse the problem. Is this true? What can I
> do?
This is great! You should've cross-posted this to COMNA; that
would've been a riot. I could see Boris' reaction now. From what you
say, Windows is great for one thing: You know how you wake up in the
early morning hours, and you have a huge boner? Well, if you run
Windows, it'll get the boner down so you can take a piss. (If you try
to take a wiz in that state, you'll end up with a wet ceiling.)
I could see Stephen S. Edwards' reaction to this. The poor little
baby would've bawled hysterically: "wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!! You Linux
looers are picking on me again!!"
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:03:20 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Are you kidding? Windows98 ran faster on older hardware than Win95 did.
Well for myself and everyone I know, the experience has been the opposite. Then
again, I usually end up buying more RAM or upgrade some other bottleneck (Vid
card, CPU, etc) fairly regularly so the slowdown wasn't there for long.
> Note, also, that upgrading usually always fucks stuff up. You need a clean
> install. Bah... Win9x... bah...
No argument there. Heck, I just changed mobo and CPU once... win98 puked left
and right.. Linux asked me 3 questions, and came up like nothing changed...
excpet it was much faster of coure (P2-350 to an Athlon-650).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
ftp://127.0.0.1 ..... That site sucks. I've already got all of that stuff!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:10:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:03:20 +1000 <89eddk$216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 27 Feb 2000 22:08:48 -0600 <89cscg$17ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >In article <kvgu4.2620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>What does this have to do with ext2 being a crappy filesystem and it's
>> >>needing to be replaced/overhauled?
>> >>
>> >>NTFS will work fine in just about every situation, whereas,
>> >>ext2 will not due to major, glaring limitations.
>> >
>> >Ummm, try letting that NTFS fill completely with subdirectories
>> >of tiny files. Then delete them and wonder why you don't get
>> >the space back...
>>
>> And it fragments like crazy, directories can't move while defragmenting,
>> and the control area will grow and grow and grow unchecked during
>> the aforementioned filling of the file system with tiny little files.
>> (Diskeeper Lite is a useful tool... :-) )
>>
>> To be fair, it should be possible to put an ext2+ file system (the
>> + is because NT needs ACLs) on NT. It would require some sort of
>> DLL (of course). The main problem here is documentation; I've seen
>> 'fsdext2' for Windows which allows read-only access to ext2 partitions.
>>
>> I also wouldn't mind seeing a fragment display on Linux, as well.
>> It might give the NT folks something to compare to. :-)
>
>I have always been highly suspicious of the "fragmentation" reports produced
>by Diskeeper. Mainly because the performance difference of every machine
>I've ever tested between "95% fragmented" and "5% fragmented" was
>nonexistant.
I do wonder whether there's any "there", there. One problem of
course is that NT probably will just refragment everything again.
Mind you, another problem, and here I'm only guessing, is that apparently
NT tries to be cute and write the data blocks as near to where the
disk's head currently is as possible (in other words, it tries not
to move the head at all during data writes). Presumably, this
increases write performance for awhile, but badly fragments the disk.
Without source code, how do we tell?
But it's quite clear that NTFS fragments like crazy, even if Diskeeper
can't do much about it. (I have been able to optimize my paging file,
and that does improve performance, however; one easy way is to reset
the paging file size to zero, reboot, defragment, set the paging file
to a fixed size, reboot again. This does appear to help, although the
paging file will most likely sit in the middle of the partition --
which actually isn't that bad of a spot for it. Mind you, one might
want to have 128M of physical memory as a minimum, and disabling all
nonessential services (such as IIS) might not be a bad idea, either.)
>NTFS *may* "fragment", but IME it doesn't affect performance at all.
I'll admit, I agree more or less with your experience, although
part of it is simply that the danged thing doesn't stay defragmented!
Sigh.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. What do you want to do today?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:11:39 GMT
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89co3h$e2l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > The real problem is that sony won't be able to show any real
> performance
> > > > gains when they make the PS3 (yes they have already published their
> > > > plans for it!!). They hope to make the PS3's EmotionEngine2 around
> 100x
> > > > faster than the original EE. Good luck is all I can say about that
> since
> > > > they will only have around 5 years to develop it. Just remember though
> > > > that the reason why consoles have sold so much better to the public is
> > > > that they are far easier to setup than any computer, even a mac.
> > >
> > > Actually, they could make console game engines a *billion* times faster
> than
> > > a PC for all they want, yet it still isn't going to provide the gaming
> > > experience that a PC can...
> > >
> > > I just do *not* want to play a game at TV resolutions... Yeck.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jim Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > > > > So, 20 million polygons per second.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, take this into account: The *slowest* new Voodoo product
> (the
> > > > > voodoo4)
> > > > > > > will do 333 *mega* pixels per second. That's the slowest. I'm
> not
> > > even
> > > > > > > going to mention their other products capable of performing
> *over*
> > > the
> > > > > > > *giga* pixel limit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is an apples/oranges comparison. You're comparing polygons
> to
> > > the
> > > > > fill
> > > > > > rate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hehe... I was wondering if someone was going to notice :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't been able to find polygon rates for the Voodoo4,
> perhaps
> > > > > > because it would not compare well to the GeForce (which has a 15M
> > > polygon
> > > > > > rate, still well below that of the PS2 although it's doing that
> rate
> > > with
> > > > > T&L
> > > > > > functionality too).
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the GeForce fill rate is about 540 million pixels per
> > > second...
> > > > > but that's with all of its 'special features'... whereas the PS2
> goes
> > > from
> > > > > 75M polygons to just under 20M while using 'its' special features.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note also that polygons on TV resolution will probably have far
> fewer
> > > > > pixels per polygon than somebody running in 1024x768, for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the GeForce only had to render with a 240x160 pixel resolution,
> it
> > > would
> > > > > probably blow away a PS2... which is while fill rates are generally
> > > measured
> > > > > in millions of pixels / sec... since the average size of polygons
> would
> > > > > change when the resolution changes. For a TV, it is fixed at a
> very,
> > > very
> > > > > low resolution compared to even the lower resolution for most PC
> > > games...
> > > > > 640x480 (which, probably almost noone uses anymore) - I generally
> play
> > > in
> > > > > 1024x768...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Todd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > jim
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You say it's cool to be yourself,
> > > > but you want me to be like you
> > > > and that is not being myself
> > > > http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> > Sony plans to use digital tv when it becomes mainstream. That will be a
> > problem for computer gamers because digital tv can achieve the same
> > resolutions that a computer monitor can. Then again with the standards
> > feud I doubt it will become mainstream for another 5-10 years at which
> > rate I will already have a 22' LCD for my Linux-based PC :)
>
> How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
> 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
> higher...
>
> I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
> resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
Not to mention that the best HDTV's are still grainy, have large pixel size and do not
have as good a picture quality as a good
monitor.
HDTV still requires you to sit several yards/meters away to get an acceptable picture.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:11:41 GMT
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <89co3h$e2l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Todd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > The real problem is that sony won't be able to show any real
> > performance
> > > > > gains when they make the PS3 (yes they have already published their
> > > > > plans for it!!). They hope to make the PS3's EmotionEngine2 around
> > 100x
> > > > > faster than the original EE. Good luck is all I can say about that
> > since
> > > > > they will only have around 5 years to develop it. Just remember
> > > > > though
> > > > > that the reason why consoles have sold so much better to the public
> > > > > is
> > > > > that they are far easier to setup than any computer, even a mac.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, they could make console game engines a *billion* times
> > > > faster
> > than
> > > > a PC for all they want, yet it still isn't going to provide the
> > > > gaming
> > > > experience that a PC can...
> > > >
> > > > I just do *not* want to play a game at TV resolutions... Yeck.
> > > >
> > > > -Todd
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Jim Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Todd wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, 20 million polygons per second.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, take this into account: The *slowest* new Voodoo
> > > > > > > > product
> > (the
> > > > > > voodoo4)
> > > > > > > > will do 333 *mega* pixels per second. That's the slowest.
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > not
> > > > even
> > > > > > > > going to mention their other products capable of performing
> > *over*
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > *giga* pixel limit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is an apples/oranges comparison. You're comparing
> > > > > > > polygons
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > rate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hehe... I was wondering if someone was going to notice :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't been able to find polygon rates for the Voodoo4,
> > perhaps
> > > > > > > because it would not compare well to the GeForce (which has a
> > > > > > > 15M
> > > > polygon
> > > > > > > rate, still well below that of the PS2 although it's doing that
> > rate
> > > > with
> > > > > > T&L
> > > > > > > functionality too).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the GeForce fill rate is about 540 million pixels per
> > > > second...
> > > > > > but that's with all of its 'special features'... whereas the PS2
> > goes
> > > > from
> > > > > > 75M polygons to just under 20M while using 'its' special
> > > > > > features.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note also that polygons on TV resolution will probably have far
> > fewer
> > > > > > pixels per polygon than somebody running in 1024x768, for
> > > > > > example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the GeForce only had to render with a 240x160 pixel
> > > > > > resolution,
> > it
> > > > would
> > > > > > probably blow away a PS2... which is while fill rates are
> > > > > > generally
> > > > measured
> > > > > > in millions of pixels / sec... since the average size of polygons
> > would
> > > > > > change when the resolution changes. For a TV, it is fixed at a
> > very,
> > > > very
> > > > > > low resolution compared to even the lower resolution for most PC
> > > > games...
> > > > > > 640x480 (which, probably almost noone uses anymore) - I generally
> > play
> > > > in
> > > > > > 1024x768...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Todd
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > jim
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > You say it's cool to be yourself,
> > > > > but you want me to be like you
> > > > > and that is not being myself
> > > > > http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> > > Sony plans to use digital tv when it becomes mainstream. That will be a
> > > problem for computer gamers because digital tv can achieve the same
> > > resolutions that a computer monitor can. Then again with the standards
> > > feud I doubt it will become mainstream for another 5-10 years at which
> > > rate I will already have a 22' LCD for my Linux-based PC :)
> >
> > How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
> > 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
> > higher...
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
> > resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
>
> HDTV is 1920x1080.
And looks great sitting 1' infront of the screen? You don't see any of hte individual
elements.. and no visible pixelization?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm...
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:11:51 GMT
Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joseph, (why is it that only your messages don't get automatically quoted?
> > :)
>
> He uses
>
> X-Newsreader: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; OS/2)
>
> and you use
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>
> I've noticed this before, for some reason OE has problems with posts
> made with StarOffice. And before somebody (again) puts the blame on SO,
> no other newsreader seems to have these problems.
by the same token.. OE has no other problem with any other newsreader, other than SO
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
