 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> The is not just theoretical, because some games *do* benefit from
>>> extra CPU cores, and in fact some of them require additional cores if
>>> you want to turn on certain features.
>>
>> AI would be the main one, I guess... depending on what algorithm the
>> game uses.
>
> I've noticed physics takes a big chunk as well.
I thought the whole point of PhysX was to put that on the GPU?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
> benefit.
If you haven't noticed, YouTube has for some time supported
1920x1080 video. Likewise most online video rentals do so.
(While increase in resolution doesn't linearly correlate to bitrate
requirement with modern video compression techniques, the extra
details in full-HD video does obviously need a higher bitrate than
lower-resolution one, if you want any kind of finer detail preserved.)
> ...until you try to download a large file, but that's reasonably rare.
> Still, with Bioshock: Infinite clocking in at 17 GB, I'm sure glad of
> the speed on the rare occasions where I use it! o_O
It's nice when I buy such a game from Steam and it takes like an hour
to download instead of the 10 to 20 hours that it took not so many
years ago (when my internet connection was much slower.)
> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
I'm sure there are higher-resolution ones, but they are probably quite
expensive.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:16:33 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
Um, I've got one that does full 1080p. It's nearly 10 years old (I'd
have to check when we actually bought it, but it's at least 8 years old).
I honestly don't know where you get the crazy idea that higher
resolutions aren't available. I mean, if you're projecting on a 8-10
foot 16:9 diagonal area, 1024x768 is going to look like shit. 800x600
even more so.
1920x1080, though, looks pretty nice on the ~12' diagonal space we've got
in our living room. When I can get the room dark enough (we need
blackout blinds in there, but have mesh ones that direct sunlight just
dances through, more or less).
But another case of "maybe Andy should google before making blanket
statements about how 'all' of something is absolutely limited to 'x'." ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I honestly don't know where you get the crazy idea that higher
> resolutions aren't available. I mean, if you're projecting on a 8-10
> foot 16:9 diagonal area, 1024x768 is going to look like shit. 800x600
> even more so.
Well, he also is of the opinion that the screen of an iPhone is
postal-stamp-sized, you have to keep it an inch from your eyes to
see anything, it's impossible to use a web browser on one because of
the small size, and the screen gets so dirty in 10 seconds that it
won't be usable after that.
Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
surfing the net and play games are delusional.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:02:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I honestly don't know where you get the crazy idea that higher
>> resolutions aren't available. I mean, if you're projecting on a 8-10
>> foot 16:9 diagonal area, 1024x768 is going to look like shit. 800x600
>> even more so.
>
> Well, he also is of the opinion that the screen of an iPhone is
> postal-stamp-sized, you have to keep it an inch from your eyes to see
> anything, it's impossible to use a web browser on one because of the
> small size, and the screen gets so dirty in 10 seconds that it won't be
> usable after that.
True. Wait, you mean that isn't the case? ;)
> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
magnifying glass to use.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/04/2014 11:27 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
>> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
>> benefit.
>
> If you haven't noticed, YouTube has for some time supported
> 1920x1080 video. Likewise most online video rentals do so.
I wouldn't know about online video rentals. But I have noticed that
YouTube used to be unreliable to the point of being useless (i.e., every
8 to 10 seconds it freezes to buffer some more data - moreso at busy
times of the day), and the pictures used to be so utterly blurry that
you can't even recognise people's faces. They do seem to have fixed that
now, so there's that I guess...
> It's nice when I buy such a game from Steam and it takes like an hour
> to download instead of the 10 to 20 hours that it took not so many
> years ago (when my internet connection was much slower.)
Indeed. What I downloaded Star Wreck (which is, like, 4GB), it took TWO
DAYS to fetch it via BitTorrent. The other day I downloaded 17 GB inside
of an afternoon...
>> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
>> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
>> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
>
> I'm sure there are higher-resolution ones, but they are probably quite
> expensive.
The majority one the ones in the price list I looked at were 1024x768.
And we wanted it so we could do computer training sessions; almost every
known application program needs a higher resolution than that if you
actually want to see the entire main window...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I would imagine a lot of people said the same in 1850 about the
>> Industrial Revolution. And look what's changed since then (in terms of
>> manufacturing).
>
> Um... has anything changed? Apart from the invention of plastic, I can't
> really think of anything.
You just need to look at a modern car, building or home appliance to see
countless things that would simply be impossible to manufacture 100
years ago even with a limitless amount of money. Not because of the
reliance on electronics, but because processes and materials simply
hadn't been developed. Sure plastics have been around for ages, but
today we take for granted there are plastics that you can leave in
direct sunlight for decades without fading or going brittle. In another
decade or two we'll take bio-plastics for granted and they will have the
same or even better performance than we have today.
Another large part of the change is making things more efficient to
manufacture, and thus affordable for more people. Food processing and
transportation has become hugely more efficient over the last few
decades, just look at the sort of things the average person could afford
to eat in 1900 or even 1960 compared with today.
> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
> benefit.
Who would ever need more than 640KB?
> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
Have you felt the *heat* from a modern portable projector? If they made
the pixels even smaller, they'd need an even bigger light and a fridge
to stop the thing melting. There's still a way to go until you have
something small that can project clearly and sharply on to a big wall
without filling your room with heat and fan noise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wouldn't know about online video rentals. But I have noticed that
> YouTube used to be unreliable to the point of being useless (i.e., every
> 8 to 10 seconds it freezes to buffer some more data - moreso at busy
> times of the day), and the pictures used to be so utterly blurry that
> you can't even recognise people's faces. They do seem to have fixed that
> now, so there's that I guess...
I very often get the sense that you always look for the worst possible
interpretation of things (related to technology), and always try to see
the faults in things, and take things in the most negative way possible,
without even trying to investigate further or trying to find out if what
you think is not really how it is. I also have noticed that you seem to
like to generalize personal experience, is if it were true for everybody,
without even trying to find out if it is indeed the same for everybody or
whether it's just a local problem.
Some time ago the YouTube player changed so that it would be able to
switch to a higher or lower resolution version of the video on-the-fly,
depending on your connection speed. This, in my experience, has gone a
bit of back and forth in terms of what exactly it does, but you can still
see this in that if you manually change to a higher resolution it won't
pause the video, and instead will start downloading the higher resolution
stream and switch to it on-the-fly. Likewise (and especially) if your
connection is laggy, it will automatically switch to a lower-resolution
version of the stream that takes a lot less bandwidth.
If at some point you had a laggy connection for some reason, that's hardly
YouTube's fault.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
> > surfing the net and play games are delusional.
> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
> magnifying glass to use.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
without magnifying glasses all the time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/14 14:55, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>>> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>
>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
>> magnifying glass to use.
>
> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>
> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
> without magnifying glasses all the time.
>
Umm, I think Jim was being ironic. Either that or he bought his tablet
off a market stall in a 3rd world country.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
