 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Uh... we have a winner already?
>
> Sometimes you really do give the impression that you live under a rock.
Why? Because I don't follow every tiny twist and turn of modern
technology with bated breath?
Personally [and I suspect I'm not alone in this], I was just going to
sit around and wait until either BluRay or HD DVD vanishes off the
shelves, and then go with whatever is still on sale. Obviously you can't
have *two* standards out there, so one of them has to die. I figured I'd
just wait a while.
[Having said that, I haven't seen *either* technology on any "shelves".
Perhaps this is related to the fact that I don't ever go shopping? I
don't know, when *I* go shopping, it always ends up being really
expensive...]
And while we're on the subject... I gather that all this "HD" stuff is
only slightly better quality than what's already there. It's not like
anybody is going to notice a huge increase in picture quality. And that
makes it hard for me to get excited about it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> Well, I *have* tried MMORPGs. And I didn't like them. I consider the
> "Massively Monotonous Online Repetitive Perpetual Gaming" backronym to
> be somewhat accurate.
*All* online games I have tried so far have been like that. These
include all online multiplayer arena/tournament-type FPS shooters (such
as Quake3 and Team Fortress 2), team-based online shooters (Counter-Strike)
and MUDs (such as batmud).
The only redeeming feature of MMORPGs and MUDs are that their worlds
are vastly larger than the tiny levels of FPS multiplayer shooters.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Next he'll be telling us he never heard of Colossal Cave.
> >
> > Or rogue, or adom. :P
> ...it's almost as if people *want* me to fail...
At least you have heard of nethack, haven't you? You must have.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...it's almost as if people *want* me to fail...
>
> At least you have heard of nethack, haven't you? You must have.
At this point, I'm not even sure whether it's best to answer at all.
Oh... crap.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:47:01 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Sometimes you really do give the impression that you live under a rock.
>
> Why? Because I don't follow every tiny twist and turn of modern
> technology with bated breath?
Do you read no tech-related news? Any news at all?
The end of HD-DVD was fairly big news, and was at least mentioned by
mainstream media.
> And while we're on the subject... I gather that all this "HD" stuff is
> only slightly better quality than what's already there. It's not like
> anybody is going to notice a huge increase in picture quality.
The increase in picture quality can be quite noticeable, but only if you
have equipment that can display it properly.
> And that makes it hard for me to get excited about it...
A lot of people are of the opinion that selling movies on optical media is
obsolete anyway.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > VAX is... an old computer. Well, not old. More like ancient.
> Pioneering, actually. Lots of good ideas came out of the VAX. As an
> example, VAX stands for "Virtual Address eXtension", i.e., virtual memory.
Note that VAX was a 32-bit computer. This is 1977 we are talking about.
(The Intel 80386, the first 32-bit PC processor, was introduced in 1986,
ie. over a decade later.)
(Of course the PC world lagging behind in technology is nothing new.
The DEC Alpha processor was already 64-bit in 1992. The first 64-bit
PC processor was the Itanium, in 2001, which didn't get widespread
popularity. The first widespread 64-bit PC processor was the AMD Opteron,
introduced in 2003.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> - I never completed Doom.
> >
> > Neither did I. Not without cheating anyway.
> > You did play it though, right?
> In a mannar of speaking, yes...
> [Ever tried to do software rendering on a 286? Hint: this belongs to the
> class of operations that is "not fast".]
I don't believe Doom even works in a 286. (Maybe a much later third-party
port, perhaps, but not the original one.)
> >> (And I have no idea which one is currently "winning".)
> >
> > Bluray won.
> Uh... we have a winner already?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1627196120080216
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > Yes. A few weeks ago, Toshiba announced they lost and are no longer
> > manufacturing HD DVD players.
> So yeah. Blu-ray didn't win. HD-DVD gave up :)
Fortunately the Blu-Ray format is the (slightly) better of the two
anyways.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Sometimes you really do give the impression that you live under a rock.
>>
>> Why? Because I don't follow every tiny twist and turn of modern
>> technology with bated breath?
>
> Do you read no tech-related news? Any news at all?
> The end of HD-DVD was fairly big news, and was at least mentioned by
> mainstream media.
Generally, no.
The mainstream news seems to only be interested in telling you about all
the BAD news. It's damn depressing to watch.
Most "technical news" is of the form "company X says they're going to do
Y and some analyst things that's a dumb idea". I mean, like I care.
It's annoying really - there are things I *do* care about. But it seems
difficult to find any news about them.
>> And while we're on the subject... I gather that all this "HD" stuff is
>> only slightly better quality than what's already there. It's not like
>> anybody is going to notice a huge increase in picture quality.
>
> The increase in picture quality can be quite noticeable, but only if you
> have equipment that can display it properly.
Well, two things:
1. It has 2x the spatial resolution in both directions. That doesn't
sound particularly earth-shattering, even on paper.
2. I saw two displays side-by-side in a shop. The one marked HD was
certainly clearer. But it didn't make me go "wow, that's AMAZING!"
Actually it just made me go "oh, OK, so it's 10% more crisp. And you
want HOW MANY thousand pounds for this one??"
>> And that makes it hard for me to get excited about it...
>
> A lot of people are of the opinion that selling movies on optical media
> is obsolete anyway.
What, you mean like how magnetic tape is "obsolete" today? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47d2e9ae@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> > > Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > >> Tell me about it. I thought "dungeons and dragons" was a TV series...
> > >
> > > I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
> > > about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
>
> > Next he'll be telling us he never heard of Colossal Cave.
>
> Or rogue, or adom. :P
I've never heard of Colossal cave. Adom, nethack and various versions of
angband have consumed numerous hours however.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
