Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)
theOne <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> Dude, you rock on my talking about the future but you continually rehash
> the *same* past arguments. I've illustrated many reasons why people
> upgrade, why I upgrade. Not too get the lastest and greatest game to run
> at 16x12 so much but that I simply couldn't accomplish my day to day
> usage on the PC you depict.
Most people aren't going to need the latest and greatest computer to do
their jobs. If you're a graphic artist, computer animator, or do video
editing as a profession - then sure. If you're a developer then it'd make
sense to have a powerful machine as well, but many places I've worked had
dedicated build-servers, rather than giving everything a really powerful
machine. Your bragging about a dozen windows, while running different
programs, listening to an audio stream, while sending a video stream to
another computer just isn't that impressive. I've normally got 20 windows
open at work, spread across over a dozen applications. Big whoop. I've
been using multitasking OS's since college.
Sending a video stream doesn't require hardly any processor time or power
since you're just copying a file to the network. Ditto for your incoming
music stream.
This isn't to say that there aren't programs that DO demand as much power
that you can throw at them - but they're fairly small in number, and
aren't commonly used by everyone. Hence my comment about video encoding.
I *can* do it, it's not very fast, but then again, I don't do it very
often. If I did, I'd buy a newer machine - one with a lot of VERY FAST
RAM, since that's what's going to throttle the performance the most. You
also have to understand that not everyone is going to use the computer in
the same manner as you. Go into a computer store today and ask the clerks
what gets more attention - the super-powerful-desktops, or the laptops.
It's gotten to the point where it doesn't make sense to get a desktop
unless you're trying to save money, you're an extreme power user, or you're
a heavy gamer. Laptops can take care of the rest.
> I suppose HDTV is a joke compared to the vibrancy of NTSC too huh?
Considering most people still run their plain old cable through their HD
set, about the only thing they're getting is a slightly bigger screen with
fatter people on it. 😉
> not really.I'm really just pointing out that a PIII can't do everything
> a higher end system can.
> > I'm talking about playing games. You're talking about benchmarks, or
> > running a dozen programs at once, he's talking about real life usage.
> Benchmarks? I'M talking about real life usage in multitasking.
I was using multitasking on my 486 with OS/2 back in '94. Before that,
it was the *NIX machines in the school labs, and the mainframe via dumb
terminal. Your point?
My PC's killer-application is games. All the other stuff requires
relatively little power to use.
theOne <theOneOne@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> Dude, you rock on my talking about the future but you continually rehash
> the *same* past arguments. I've illustrated many reasons why people
> upgrade, why I upgrade. Not too get the lastest and greatest game to run
> at 16x12 so much but that I simply couldn't accomplish my day to day
> usage on the PC you depict.
Most people aren't going to need the latest and greatest computer to do
their jobs. If you're a graphic artist, computer animator, or do video
editing as a profession - then sure. If you're a developer then it'd make
sense to have a powerful machine as well, but many places I've worked had
dedicated build-servers, rather than giving everything a really powerful
machine. Your bragging about a dozen windows, while running different
programs, listening to an audio stream, while sending a video stream to
another computer just isn't that impressive. I've normally got 20 windows
open at work, spread across over a dozen applications. Big whoop. I've
been using multitasking OS's since college.
Sending a video stream doesn't require hardly any processor time or power
since you're just copying a file to the network. Ditto for your incoming
music stream.
This isn't to say that there aren't programs that DO demand as much power
that you can throw at them - but they're fairly small in number, and
aren't commonly used by everyone. Hence my comment about video encoding.
I *can* do it, it's not very fast, but then again, I don't do it very
often. If I did, I'd buy a newer machine - one with a lot of VERY FAST
RAM, since that's what's going to throttle the performance the most. You
also have to understand that not everyone is going to use the computer in
the same manner as you. Go into a computer store today and ask the clerks
what gets more attention - the super-powerful-desktops, or the laptops.
It's gotten to the point where it doesn't make sense to get a desktop
unless you're trying to save money, you're an extreme power user, or you're
a heavy gamer. Laptops can take care of the rest.
> I suppose HDTV is a joke compared to the vibrancy of NTSC too huh?
Considering most people still run their plain old cable through their HD
set, about the only thing they're getting is a slightly bigger screen with
fatter people on it. 😉
> not really.I'm really just pointing out that a PIII can't do everything
> a higher end system can.
> > I'm talking about playing games. You're talking about benchmarks, or
> > running a dozen programs at once, he's talking about real life usage.
> Benchmarks? I'M talking about real life usage in multitasking.
I was using multitasking on my 486 with OS/2 back in '94. Before that,
it was the *NIX machines in the school labs, and the mainframe via dumb
terminal. Your point?
My PC's killer-application is games. All the other stuff requires
relatively little power to use.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram