| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Kim Chee
   |
Posted - 2006.04.23 12:16:00 -
[331]
 Originally by: Mitram
Wouldn't it be better to move away from the Microsoft World by porting to OpenGL instead of DX10? You would get access to the continues growing Linux User community as well as to the MAC World.
Better, yes. More realistic, no.
Very very few people actually like Microsoft products, but that doesn't stop most of us from using them. When the workplace wants to setup a firewall, or a mail server, they might turn to linux (or BSD, or Cisco), but when they want to send documents and presentations to other companies, they use Microsoft. Why? Because it's a known product that works (well enough).
Likewise, when you are considering spending XX million dollars to produce a new (or updated) video game... are you going to choose OpenGL, knowing that you'll capture that extra 2% market share that Linux and MacOS X occupy, and give yourself two more platforms for tech support to deal with? No, you're going to code for the other 98% of the desktops on the planet, using the technology that will be most strongly supported by Microsoft. Why? Because if you use OpenGL, bugs in the API itself won't be addressed as quickly.
With earlier version of Windows, Microsoft downplayed OpenGL and allowed vendors to write their own API for it. The result was chaos, since a developer wouldn't know which version of OGL was in use, and thus had to use the bare minimum or risk losing various video cards as their OGL support fell behind.
I hate Vista, and I'm not overly fond of Microsoft... but in 2008, as more and more newer games start "requiring" it, I'll probably bite the bullet and get a machine with Vista loaded. I use my computer for enjoyment, and I don't enjoy having to constantly poke and prod linux to try and make things run correctly on it.
<=----=>
Vila Restal: I'm entitled to my opinion.
Kerr Avon: It is your assumption that we are entitled to it as well that is irritating.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 12:55:00 -
[332]
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 23/04/2006 12:58:45
Having gone through this thread and reading this DRM-fest crap about Vista left me in awe.
First of all, that Palladium stuff is out. The only components of it that remain are hardware accelerated disk encryption and secure boot, both OPTIONAL. And even then, it seems like secure boot went out of the window with EFI support, since it depended on it.
And second, be happy that Microsoft is actually implementing that encrypted video channel, because otherwise the movie industry might just decide to not issue licenses for software players at all. However that video channel does not affect your highres Xvid **** (or any other pirated movies you downloaded already, or will do so), only specifically HDDVD/BluRay software players, because the industry mandates that the video data may not be intercepted anywhere. The only reason you'd complain about this "DRM crap" is either if you intend to rip HDDVDs yourself, or you're just a clicheed anti-MS slashdot type.
Even then, you don't need to worry about your "backup copies" anyway, since HDMI has already been broken, so there's a way to tap into raw digital datastreams already, and it is only a matter of time until AACS will be broken, too.
So stop crapping your pants.
--edit: And before you go out of your way calling me a Microsoft apologist for this post or those in gamedev, I'm surely not. I'm regularily ripping the devs a new one in their newsgroup for the bloat they implemented. For all I care, I could stay on Windows Server 2003 for some longer, I just care about the coming kernel improvements. If Vista lands on this machine, it'll be brought down to pre-Vista classic mode levels anyway.
|
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 18:15:00 -
[333]
1.The movie industry does not need to issuse licenses for software players at all. The DMCA allows for the reverse-engineering of copyright protection systems for the purpose of interoperability with other software. And the law trumps any EULAs or license agreements. By implementing the "encrypted video channel", Microsoft has become a collaberator with the cartel known as the MPAA.
2.Palladium was taken out because, surprise, no one wanted to use it. They had difficulty getting 3rd party vendors to use it. It has not, however, been ruled out for later versions of Windows like Blackcomb/Vienna.
3.The kernel "improvements" in Vista will be negated by all the negative stuff they have added. And UNIX kernels still remain far superior to anything Microsoft could hope to put out. The Linux kernel has superior IO and Processor Schedulers, superior memory management and superior design.
4.Windows Server 2003 is bloat. So I do not see how you can "rip them a new one" for the "bloat they implemented" when you already choose to use one of the most bloated server operating systems there is. The fact that you cannot remove the GUI or shut it down in a server operating system is reason enough to never use it. A GUI has no business on a server, it just wastes valuable resources.
Originally by: Deakin Frost
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 23/04/2006 12:58:45
Having gone through this thread and reading this DRM-fest crap about Vista left me in awe.
First of all, that Palladium stuff is out. The only components of it that remain are hardware accelerated disk encryption and secure boot, both OPTIONAL. And even then, it seems like secure boot went out of the window with EFI support, since it depended on it.
And second, be happy that Microsoft is actually implementing that encrypted video channel, because otherwise the movie industry might just decide to not issue licenses for software players at all. However that video channel does not affect your highres Xvid **** (or any other pirated movies you downloaded already, or will do so), only specifically HDDVD/BluRay software players, because the industry mandates that the video data may not be intercepted anywhere. The only reason you'd complain about this "DRM crap" is either if you intend to rip HDDVDs yourself, or you're just a clicheed anti-MS slashdot type.
Even then, you don't need to worry about your "backup copies" anyway, since HDMI has already been broken, so there's a way to tap into raw digital datastreams already, and it is only a matter of time until AACS will be broken, too.
So stop crapping your pants.
--edit: And before you go out of your way calling me a Microsoft apologist for this post or those in gamedev, I'm surely not. I'm regularily ripping the devs a new one in their newsgroup for the bloat they implemented. For all I care, I could stay on Windows Server 2003 for some longer, I just care about the coming kernel improvements. If Vista lands on this machine, it'll be brought down to pre-Vista classic mode levels anyway.
|
Azure Skyclad
|
Posted - 2006.04.23 19:02:00 -
[334]
10 PRINT "HI2U2!!11!!"
20 GOTO 10
>RUN
HI2U2!!11!
HI2U2!!11!
HI2U2!!11!
HI2U2!!11!
HI2U2!!11!
HI2U2!!11!
Job at MS plz!!
(Yes, this is my way of saying What the bobbins are you all on about?)
http://www.voodoorockers.co.uk/ |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 21:57:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 25/04/2006 21:58:10
I realise this verges on necroposting, but this is pretty relevant (RUMOUR that Intel are planning an integrated graphics chipset with DX10 "functionality" - yes, I realise that you could interpret it as only partial support, but DX10 being what it is partial support is pointless...)
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:03:00 -
[336]
Just says SM4.0, not full DX10..
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:10:00 -
[337]
SM 4.0 is a very big part of DX10. Ofc you never know it might be like the Nvidia FX5200 which was a DX9 card, but couldnt run DX9 code at any playable speed.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:15:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Just says SM4.0, not full DX10..
And given that DX10 has no caps... ?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:40:00 -
[339]
DX10 however has a base level below which you can't run DX10. You can support 99% of the features, and it's not enough. You need 100%.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:45:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
DX10 however has a base level below which you can't run DX10. You can support 99% of the features, and it's not enough. You need 100%.
Uh, yeah. That's what I'm saying. There is no point in supporting SM4.0 unless you support the entire DX10 featureset, and I can't see the largest GPU manufacturer in the world designing an entire graphics chip without realising that.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:47:00 -
[341]
?
This IS Intel we're talking about, right?
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:54:00 -
[342]
Yup, Intel. Ships more GPUs than either ATI or nVidia, counting integrated chips.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/03/jon_peddie_desktop_graphics_q4_05/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/01/graphics_chip_mkt_q3_05/\
etc. It's a pretty well-established trend.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:56:00 -
[343]
No, the other bit.
Intel have a history of promising a lot with integrated graphics and then the performance falling flat on its face.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 22:58:00 -
[344]
Oh sure, the performance will probably be as little as they can get away with. But the features will all be there, because (due to the lack of caps) there's simply no point in producing a solution* with partial support, because the features you do implement won't be recognised by DX9 or DX10
*That doesn't, of course, rule out software emulation (which sucks, obviously). I guess it's possible that they're simply putting in software emulation of SM4.0 as a selling point, but it still won't be DX10 compliant and therefore you still won't be able to run Aero Glass on it, which is I imagine what Intel are aiming for with this release.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 23:25:00 -
[345]
"Oh sure, the performance will probably be as little as they can get away with."
That's putting it mildly... intel has been making 'technically compliant' chipsets with dx supports for quite a few years now, but can't think of single instance where this would actually equal to practical ability of running any sensible game. Because of it, i can't really put any faith in that announcement, sorry :/
"but it still won't be DX10 compliant and therefore you still won't be able to run Aero Glass on it, which is I imagine what Intel are aiming for with this release."
Since Vista window manager --eyecandy and all-- is built on dx9, doubt the performance with dx10 is going to get much focus? They'll likely work on the operations required to somewhat run the desktop, and that's it. No reason to go any further for them really.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 23:29:00 -
[346]
Yeah, see edit re Aero.
As to the overall relevance of this rumour, I'd agree that it's almost certainly not going to be a viable Eve platform. The reason it's relevant is that, if this is intended as a direct GMA950 (the DX9 integrated part) replacement, it suggests that it's possible to make a chip that's technically DX10 compliant for the same ballpark price as a chip that's technically DX9 compliant. This seems to suggest that mid-range and low-end DX10 parts from ATI and nVidia in H1 07 or before are eminently feasible and indeed fairly likely.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 23:41:00 -
[347]
I hit the reply before the edit about Aero thingie was made, sorry ^^;
"The reason it's relevant is that, if this is intended as a direct GMA950 (the DX9 integrated part) replacement, it suggests that it's possible to make a chip that's technically DX10 compliant for the same ballpark price as a chip that's technically DX9 compliant. This seems to suggest that mid-range and low-end DX10 parts from ATI and nVidia in H1 07 or before are eminently feasible and indeed fairly likely."
Now that's pretty interesting indeed, didn't think of it. Guess it depends on how much of the 'intel chip' work is actually delegated to the main processor through software emulation or something, but in any case... guess we just have to wait and see o.O
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 23:43:00 -
[348]
The roadmaps from ATI and Nvidia suggest mid-level DX10 cards in Q3 2007.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 00:04:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The roadmaps from ATI and Nvidia suggest mid-level DX10 cards in Q3 2007.
And at the rate MS is going, thats around time when Vista will ship...
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
damicatz
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 02:09:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The roadmaps from ATI and Nvidia suggest mid-level DX10 cards in Q3 2007.
How does one design a GPU for a spec that, aside from basic concepts, doesn't even exist yet?
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 02:18:00 -
[351]
Originally by: damicatz
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The roadmaps from ATI and Nvidia suggest mid-level DX10 cards in Q3 2007.
How does one design a GPU for a spec that, aside from basic concepts, doesn't even exist yet?
Well, there is a D3D10 SDK that you can download. I'd imagine that the hardware side of things is pretty well worked out between MS and ATI/nVidia. If not completely worked out, then hopefully they won't be major code changes for ATI/nVidia.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Gornax Garrul
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 05:28:00 -
[352]
The best thing Microsoft could do would be to remove Caps Lock support from all future products...
**
People like you make me want to access your brain and type "rm -rf /*"
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 09:04:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The roadmaps from ATI and Nvidia suggest mid-level DX10 cards in Q3 2007.
...
Link? And yes, I googled for this last time you brought it up and found nothing.
|
Namo Iluvatar
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 00:11:00 -
[354]
While this is all going to be a thrill to see when it finally materializes, I have two words... BUMP MAPPING.
wake me up when:
1)graphics cards are powerful enough to render bump mapping a game in real time.
and
2) Eve (or any other game for that matter) supports the use of bump mapping.
*** All skill is in vain when an angel spits in the flintlock of your musket. *** |
Aaron Sylasta
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 00:34:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Namo Iluvatar
wake me up when:
1)graphics cards are powerful enough to render bump mapping a game in real time.
Might not want to go to bed then, that's been possible for quite awhile, and we've already moved on to normal maps. |
Valeo Galaem
InterGalactic Corp.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 01:04:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Namo Iluvatar
While this is all going to be a thrill to see when it finally materializes, I have two words... BUMP MAPPING.
wake me up when:
1)graphics cards are powerful enough to render bump mapping a game in real time.
and
2) Eve (or any other game for that matter) supports the use of bump mapping.
Um.. yah, bump mapping has been around for at least 6, 7 years. But EVE doesn't make very good use of it as far as I can tell.
..Now, if you are talking about Displacement Mapping, then that is another story. Real time displacement mapping is a looong ways off. In the mean time we get to use bump mapping, normal mapping, and parallax mapping.
Does anyone think EVE would look awesome with parallaxed mapped armor damage? I wanna see great big, deep gashes in my ship after narrowly escaping death, not 'nothing' as it is now :\
Thar be Pirates
You are not authorised to hack into CONCORD's mainframe
Your Wallet has been emptied!
CONCORD Encryption |
LittleAngel
LittleHauling
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.05 02:32:00 -
[357]
So my experience of EVE being quicker on my old u2w scsi drives rather than my new IDE/S-ata disks is given a foundation.
3ms acces time ftw!
Now to get that Gigabyte flash drive made up out of ddr. hmmmmmm
Low End Minerals Trader
Based in Verge Vendor; Alentene VI-6.
Free delivery when the cargo is Passive Targeters or over 100k m3. Safe empire space only.
Ammo delivered free. And possible in low |
Henri Trader
|
Posted - 2006.08.05 08:02:00 -
[358]
WHy has this topic not received a sticky ???
|
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.05 08:05:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Henri Trader
WHy has this topic not received a sticky???
It used to have a sticky, but like all dev blog threads, they are replaced when new ones show up. Personally i want a forum channel for all stickies so they can continue being discussed without being bumped all the time in this channel.
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Iriana
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 01:14:00 -
[360]
will Old Eve work on in vista?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |