All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Hardware
I'm sorry to say this, but
gump420:
Umm, in any case, if G4s suck so bad at rendering, why is rendering graphics exactly what the Macintosh platform is used for???
Zombie9920:
The G4 is good at rendering 2D images(like video). It's 3D rendering performace isn't anywhere near x86(which is a big reason why there aren't many good games for the Mac). Macs have the GeForce video card+GPU available for them now....but the G4 processor doesn't have the muscle to push the GeForce like 1ghz+ x86 CPUs have. Even with a GeForce 3 a Mac usually can't push any more than 40FPS when rendering 3D images.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
gump420:
quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
The G4 is good at rendering 2D images(like video). It's 3D rendering performace isn't anywhere near x86(which is a big reason why there aren't many good games for the Mac). Macs have the GeForce video card+GPU available for them now....but the G4 processor doesn't have the muscle to push the GeForce like 1ghz+ x86 CPUs have. Even with a GeForce 3 a Mac usually can't push any more than 40FPS when rendering 3D images.
[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
--- End quote ---
Actually, the fact that sales for games are much more lucrative on the x86 side than the PPC side is pretty much THE reason that there aren't many games for Mac OS.
In any case, the Mhz has NOTHING to do with it. In the case of communication between two seperate chips (in this case the CPU and GPU) the bus speed is much more important, and Mac systems have much better performance in that area.
Calum:
quote:Originally posted by triploop:
Anyway.. what is this about Windows having bad boot time? WTF? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. My system runs Win2k (don't worry, I run Linux also), and Win2K boots in 30 seconds. I have a peer-to-peer network with a 98 machine, the 98 machine being the server (so I don't have to be connected). When I had 9x loaded on my system, it took about 10 seconds to load. Same with WinME and WinXP.
Linux takes much longer than Win2K to boot up. So wtf is with associating Winbloze and bad boot time? That's ludicrous. Some people bash out of ignorant stupidity.
[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: triploop ]
--- End quote ---
?
Surely the boot time is determined largely by what needs to be done at the time of booting? Such as loading drivers, checking for connections, making sure all the expected hardware is still there and loading up all those useless crappy background programs that windows is so fond of running. Well done on getting lucky, but my laptop (a 900 Mhz P3 w/ 128 Mb RAM) loads up Win98 in between 3 and 4 minutes. It was the same with WinMe when i had it installed. This is not ignorant stupidity on my part, just the ability to count.
Ok... Carry on.
ravuya:
(omg, the front page news story on msnbc.com is all about bill gates giving money to charity... talk about your fronts)
Heh, there are already several projects to port *nixes to the XBox.
Me? Hell, I'd much rather have seen it that the Indrema had lived, it would provide me with an alternative to all the dumbasses (yes, I own a gamecube) on various console gaming forums (I run through them just to see idiots)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version