 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
>>> - I have never even *seen* Wind Commander.
>
>> Wind what?
>
> He probably meand Wing Commander. Not that it probably makes any
> difference to either of you, though. :P
I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want *my* geek points going
down by showing ignorance. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I don't know anyone (personally, and in the same country as me) who is
>> geeky enough to know about D&D anyway. So even if it sounded
>> interesting to me (which it doesn't), who would I play with?
>
> That's why WoW is such a hit, methinks. All the asocial nerds who'd
> otherwise be playing D&D can now WoW with folks in other countries.
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.
And WoW isn't even free...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - 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 have never even *seen* Wind Commander.
>
> Nor learned to spell its title...
OK, OK, I hit one wrong key! Sheesh...
>> - I can't remember who's behind BluRay
>
> Sony et al.
>
>> or HD DVD.
>
> Toshiba et al.
Interesting. I was sure they said one of them was being backed by HP...
>> (And I have no idea which one is currently "winning".)
>
> Bluray won.
Uh... we have a winner already?
>> Are we done yet?
>
> We will not cease until we have fully explored the depths of your
> ungeekiness. Like it or not, you have become a public figure of sorts.
> Scrutiny and criticism are part of the package.
What about respect and appreciation?
Oh, wait...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:11:58 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>Stephen escribió:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:51:31 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez
>> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>>
>>> The first computer I saw was already a PC
>>
>> The first computer I saw was an analogue one driven by valves.
>
>See. Different generations :)
No need for a smiley :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:24:49 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> - I can't remember who's behind BluRay
>> Sony et al.
>>
>>> or HD DVD.
>> Toshiba et al.
>
> Interesting. I was sure they said one of them was being backed by HP...
I think HP supported HD-DVD.
>>> (And I have no idea which one is currently "winning".)
>> Bluray won.
>
> Uh... we have a winner already?
Sometimes you really do give the impression that you live under a rock.
http://www.hd-dvd.com/
> What about respect and appreciation?
Those are for movie stars and successful athletes.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> or HD DVD.
>> Toshiba et al.
>> Bluray won.
> Uh... we have a winner already?
Yes. A few weeks ago, Toshiba announced they lost and are no longer
manufacturing HD DVD players.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escribió:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>>> or HD DVD.
>>> Toshiba et al.
>
>>> Bluray won.
>> Uh... we have a winner already?
>
> 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 :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] gmailisthebestcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [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.)
OK, well, we *are* talking about events that happened well over 10 years
ago. My memory isn't so hot. What I do remember is this:
1. At the time, Doom was reputed to require insanely expensive high-end
hardware to run usably.
2. My school had old, crappy hardware.
3. A friend of mine cunningly hid a copy of Doom on several PCs.
(Installed it in a folder named "...", so nobody would spot it.)
4. It was slow as hell!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (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.)
My mate Benny tells me that [I forget exactly who] had a 10 GHz CPU well
over 10 years ago, but modern PCs can't do this due to "the x86 overhead".
But then, my mate Benny tells me a lot of computer-related "facts" which
are quite clearly wildly incorrect, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47d2ddaa$1@news.povray.org...
> I don't know anyone (personally, and in the same country as me) who is
> geeky enough to know about D&D anyway. So even if it sounded interesting
> to me (which it doesn't), who would I play with?
What country do you live in?
http://www.treasuretables.org/ways-to-find-rpg-players
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47d2f3cb$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > 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??"
Thousands of pounds? Maybe 5 years ago. I just bought a 40" HD TV for under
1000 pounds, and it's mid-high on the 40" range.
I've played X-box games on both my old TV and the new LCD. The difference is
exceptional. I couldn't even read half the text on the old TV. On the new,
it's crystal clear.
Normal DVDs don't show so much difference, but there's still a very
noticable difference in display quality. I watched the sceen with Gandalf
and the Balrog of Moria on the new TV and it was sooo clear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fredrik Eriksson" <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote in message
news:op.### [at] e6600bredbandsbolagetse...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:24:49 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I was sure they said one of them was being backed by HP...
>
> I think HP supported HD-DVD.
They did. My HP laptop has a HD-DVD drive. Woohoo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> I've never heard of Colossal cave.
AKA "Adventure", aka the first ever computer adventure-style game. (Was
it the first game at all?)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 1. At the time, Doom was reputed to require insanely expensive high-end
> hardware to run usably.
That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
> 4. It was slow as hell!
With current computers you could run Doom at 1600x1200 in the original
software rendering mode without problems (assuming it would support those
resolutions, which it doesn't, at least not without heavy modifications
of the source code, AFAIK).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
Actually, I saw a blue-ray display on a something-like60" display in the
store a couple weeks ago. It was the first big-screen display that
didn't look (to me) worse than a smaller screen. There was grainyness in
the picture, but I was only standing a couple feet away and looking for
it. Much better than the blocky over-compression stuff I always see on
the big screens.
Maybe blue-ray just has better marketing and manages to get DVDs out to
the stores selling the players, but the compression artifacts were
definitely better, in my opinion.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
> news:47d2ddaa$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> I don't know anyone (personally, and in the same country as me) who is
>> geeky enough to know about D&D anyway. So even if it sounded interesting
>> to me (which it doesn't), who would I play with?
>
> What country do you live in?
> http://www.treasuretables.org/ways-to-find-rpg-players
...if I *was* interested, which I'm not...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> [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...]
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050319
> 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...
>
I'd assume otherwise. Of course, the people who can tell the difference
on 20" screen from 2 meters are really rare.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47d2f829$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > I've never heard of Colossal cave.
>
> AKA "Adventure", aka the first ever computer adventure-style game. (Was
> it the first game at all?)
No idea. First one I remember playing was Asteroids (On a Sharp computer)
sometime around 1984 or so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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??"
>
> Thousands of pounds? Maybe 5 years ago.
Or maybe they set the display up next to the most expensive equipment in
the shop?
> I've played X-box games on both my old TV and the new LCD. The difference is
> exceptional. I couldn't even read half the text on the old TV. On the new,
> it's crystal clear.
I've tried connecting my laptop to a normal TV. *Everything* is unreadable!
But then, I sit about 2 feet away from my laptop's screen A TV is
usually at least 12 feet away, if not more...
> Normal DVDs don't show so much difference, but there's still a very
> noticable difference in display quality. I watched the sceen with Gandalf
> and the Balrog of Moria on the new TV and it was sooo clear.
Oddly, whenever I watch DVDs on my PC, I'm astounded by how crappy the
picture looks. Yet on a normal TV it looks perfectly OK. Weird... I
guess the low-quality TV display hides more of the imperfections?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47d2f9d5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I've tried connecting my laptop to a normal TV. *Everything* is
unreadable!
I connected my server to the new TV. Crystal clear, and that's with me
sitting over a meter away.
Here's to computing from the couch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 1. At the time, Doom was reputed to require insanely expensive high-end
>> hardware to run usably.
>
> That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
SX or DX? ;-)
>> 4. It was slow as hell!
>
> With current computers you could run Doom at 1600x1200 in the original
> software rendering mode without problems (assuming it would support those
> resolutions, which it doesn't, at least not without heavy modifications
> of the source code, AFAIK).
Impressive what 10 years of evolution can do, eh?
And yet, M$ Word is still as slow today as it was all those years ago...
I guess some things never change. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47d2f8c5$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw escribió:
> > "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in
message
> > news:47d2ddaa$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> I don't know anyone (personally, and in the same country as me) who is
> >> geeky enough to know about D&D anyway. So even if it sounded
interesting
> >> to me (which it doesn't), who would I play with?
> >
> > What country do you live in?
> > http://www.treasuretables.org/ways-to-find-rpg-players
>
> ...if I *was* interested, which I'm not...
You never know until you've tried..
(doing best salesperson impersonation)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:47d2f829$1@news.povray.org...
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> I've never heard of Colossal cave.
>> AKA "Adventure", aka the first ever computer adventure-style game. (Was
>> it the first game at all?)
>
> No idea. First one I remember playing was Asteroids (On a Sharp computer)
> sometime around 1984 or so.
Adventure was written in 1976, slightly before Apple went into business
at all. The wiki article is actually pretty amusing. I have the source
listing for Adventure 550 in Fortran. :-)
It's certainly the first largely-popular game, in much the same way that
PONG was pretty much the first big video game.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > I've never heard of Colossal cave.
> AKA "Adventure", aka the first ever computer adventure-style game. (Was
> it the first game at all?)
Defining what is the "first computer game ever created" is a bit more
difficult than one might thing.
Some argue that the first one was a tennis game someone programmed using
an analog oscilloscope as display in the 1950's.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> You never know until you've tried..
> (doing best salesperson impersonation)
Hmm, and I'll bet you've met a lot of salepeople in your line of work
too. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47d2fb28$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > You never know until you've tried..
> > (doing best salesperson impersonation)
>
> Hmm, and I'll bet you've met a lot of salepeople in your line of work
> too. ;-)
None if I can help it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hmm, and I'll bet you've met a lot of salepeople in your line of work
>> too. ;-)
>
> None if I can help it.
TELL ME YOUR SECRET!! >_<
I am *so* fed up of that Russian girl trying to sell me AV licenses...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And yet, M$ Word is still as slow today as it was all those years ago...
No, it isn't. Take MS Word from those days and run it in a modern
computer and let's see if it's as slow as then.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> And yet, M$ Word is still as slow today as it was all those years ago...
>
> No, it isn't. Take MS Word from those days and run it in a modern
> computer and let's see if it's as slow as then.
He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
Word on an old computer. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
computers get faster (well, GUI stuff... CPU-intensive software like
POV-Ray does notice the speedups, or the increase in quality).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
> Word on an old computer. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
> computers get faster.
And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
in this opinion, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
> in this opinion, so...
>
Wrong. I share the annoynment.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:56:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
> about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
Some people live very sheltered lives.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:19:18 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> - I have only watched about 3 episodes of Babylon 5. The only cool
>> thing about it was the graphics being done on an Amiga.
>
> Yet you know what B5 is?
A space opera/soap opera set in space. Yes, I watched it....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:56:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
>> about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
>
> Some people live very sheltered lives.
...or just aren't interested in specific aspects of the world.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Warp escribió:
> > Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And yet, M$ Word is still as slow today as it was all those years ago...
> >
> > No, it isn't. Take MS Word from those days and run it in a modern
> > computer and let's see if it's as slow as then.
> He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
> Word on an old computer.
I know that he meant that, and my answer was that he is comparing apples
with oranges.
Just because the two pieces of software have been given the same name and
both can be used for the same task doesn't mean that they are the *same*
software. They are two different programs. Saying "Word is *still* as slow
as it was 10 years ago" is wrong: No it isn't. He is comparing the 10yo
program called "Word" with a modern program called "Word" which doesn't
share anything else than the name (and maybe some subroutines perhaps).
These two softwares can be distinguished by their version number, which
is usually mentioned in the name of the software.
> Software gets slower at around the same rate as
> computers get faster
Not true. Software *does more* at the same rate as computing power
allows it.
Sure, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 played in a 2GHz Pentium4 may be
"as slow as" Doom played in a 33MHz 486 in terms of framerate, but
that's still comparing apples with oranges. The only thing these two
pieces of software have in common is that they are both FPS games.
HL2:Ep2 is *doing more* than Doom.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:15:37 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The mainstream news seems to only be interested in telling you about all
> the BAD news. It's damn depressing to watch.
Exactly my sentiments. I never watch the news myself, because all it is
over here in the US is generally:
1. Politics (which I follow elsewhere)
2. A body count
3. The Weather (which I can get anytime I want online)
4. Sports (which I don't care about)
5. Some feel-good story about a family saved by their pet or some other
nonsense like that.
#2 generally takes up most of the newscasts I've seen - accidents,
shootings, robberies, etc. If I want to be scared, I'll watch a horror
movie.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
> > Word on an old computer. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
> > computers get faster.
> And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
> in this opinion, so...
If you liked Word from 10 years ago, nothing stops you from taking it
and using it in your current supercomputer. It will be much faster than
it was 10 years ago.
You seem to refuse to accept that modern software *does more* than 10
years old software. You always talk as if they did the *exact same thing*,
just much more slowly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
