 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:08:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> Old Games. Programmers used to rely on the fact that the processor ran
>> at a brisk 4mhz, 12+mhz caused the game to run too fast to be playable.
>
> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
Yeah, something like that. When nobody needed more than 640K, part of
the "reason" was there was no need to write code that ran at a constant
speed regardless of the processor speed. Until you had "turbo" machines
with 8-12 MHz, running a game like Pole Position at 3-4x normal speed
made it difficult to play.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:28:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> WTF? Why would they - oh, wait... CSS malfunctions if you play it on a
>>> dual-core CPU. (Something to do with directly accessing the CPU's
>>> realtime timer - which, obviously, is different on each core!)
>>
>> Well, way back in the dark ages, they didn't really expect the CPU
>> clock speed to change, so their timings were based on how fast the
>> processor executes instructions. Of course, when faster systems started
>> coming out, they had to change their timing strategy.
>
> Heh. Delay loops FTW! :-/
There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:37:15 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> But then again, computer to a layman is nothing but a gateway to games,
>> music and video -- with some office software used to spellcheck emails
>> to justify the price as opposed to a mere games console. Beautiful
>> keyboard, mouse, monitor and casing are far more important than
>> whatever is on the inside -- the computer itself...
>
> I miss the days of the nondescript beige box.
I've got two like that here. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
> something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
News today: an 8GB *RAM-based* solid-state drive:
http://tinyurl.com/8d64qv
Transfer rate 6GB/second, except SATA doesn't support that much! :D
(hmm that might be 6.4 giga *bits* per second and arstechnica got it wrong?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And other times you just have to select the
> biggest, baddest mutha you can, just to see what the hell the price tag
> comes out at.
A friend tried that on apple.com and got a $10k quote.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
> look like a Ferrari.
The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-) Well actually I'd prefer one
that looked and went like a Ferrari, but they're quite expensive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
>> look like a Ferrari.
>
> The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
> Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-) Well actually I'd prefer
> one that looked and went like a Ferrari, but they're quite expensive.
You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it has
a powerful engine too! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
> exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it has a
> powerful engine too! ;-)
but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency innit, i
got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that hannit
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> You forgot the exhaust system! Gotta take out the carefully designed
>> exhaust and replace it with a baked bean tin so it *sounds* like it
>> has a powerful engine too! ;-)
>
> but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency
> innit, i got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that
> hannit
Yes! Because we all know, making your car sound like a 2-stroke
motorbike gives it the power-to-weight ratio of a 2-stroke motorbike! ;-)
Heh, reminds me of one of our local shops. We went in there to buy a
replacement battery. While they do sell those, most of their range is...
well let me put it this way. They sell allow wheels. Bucket seats. They
had a "rally" stereo system on display. And they also sell panels of
LEDs that flash. (?!) They don't do anything, they just look high-tech.
That store went bankrupt a few months ago...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> but the original spec exhaust is made for low noise and efficiency
> innit, i got it tuned for max power now and it gotta be loud for that
> hannit
>
It's crude, but I call them "Fart pipes"
Though a decent tuned exhaust does sound nice ...
But sticking a tailpipe with the diameter of a coffee can on your car
does nothing, but make your car sound like rolling flatulence.
And, someone once said if your car is loud, you're not getting the most
performance.
And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
