PDA

View Full Version : Drool...I'm a hardware slut too



Wombat
13th August 1999, 15:02
Hey folks,
I was doing some shopping at the local mall, and stopped in the Software etc. because, well, why not?
They had a Sega DreamCast unit on display, with the new Sonic game on it.
I'm not the biggest Sonic fan, but damn! the hardware can do some nice stuff. Too bad Sega is grabbing so much of the yield, because I'd really like to see this video chip on a PC card. Me want.

-Wombat

mragsdale
13th August 1999, 15:26
Some of the consoles coming are really the shit. Have you seen the Playstation 2? It is looking to be pretty heady shit, too. I will probably get one, 'cause I am just a gadget type guy. http://forums.gagames.com/forums/wink.gif

Rags

[This message has been edited by mragsdale (edited 08-13-1999).]

HollyBerri
14th August 1999, 09:19
Anybody know if the next gen of consoles will still connect to a Jam!! ? I'm trying to reduce the amount of A/V equipment littering my home, after all...another TV/console installation does not thrill me. Or else I'd be paying a lot closer attention to these developments.

----------------------------
the once and future motub

mragsdale
14th August 1999, 12:43
Merchant,

I don't argue that the PC is much better in terms of usability. But you can see that at the time they are released, game consoles do their job better than the PC at that time. Also consider this: when you want to get a faster console, and need to upgrade, you buy a new console (about 130 dollars) when you need to upgrade your PC, you usually need a new MB (100) a new CPU (300) more RAM (150) and maybe a new Hard Drive (150). That is 700 vs. 130. But on the other side of the coin. When you upgrade your PC, you can still play your old games, wheras most consoles are not backwards compatible (the psx will be, I guess). My point is that I am a sucker for any new technology. The only exception for the time being is the Mac. which you cannot convince me that there is a purpose for it in front of me. And yes I use a Mac on a semi daily basis both a G3 and an iMac (both can kiss my ass with their keyboards that were not meant for a man with the size of hands that I have).

Rags

Wombat
14th August 1999, 14:01
I'm not a MacOS fan, but the hardware is cool. You can't tell me the G3 is a crappy chip. I like my x86, but those things are faster, and consume much less power (thus better overclockers).
I've had some nice conversations with Motorola, and the G4 is a cool chip. The vector unit is friggin' amazing. 128bit wide I/O, can do 2 64-bit inputs, 64 2-bit inputs, and everything in between. Also, 16,000 adds in one clock. (Admittedly it takes 50 clocks to get the data in the registers, but WOW).
And now that IBM has released a board design.........?


-Wombat


------------------
503+ rev 1.2a, 128MB PC100 RAM, K6-2/350@400,RH6 & Win98,G200 Millenium (SGRAM), no plans to buy a G400

mragsdale
14th August 1999, 14:11
I don't want to get into a Mac Flame war, but I have to say that I don't believe the Mac is any faster. More efficient, yes, cooler running yes.....Faster, no. More compatible, no. Easier to tweak, no. Made for people like me, no. I like the idea of firewire, and I would like to see the floppy dead as well. I think the technology is pretty neat, but that is as far as I can give credit for it. I think about the only thing faster about the Mac is the boot time. I like my PC, it is big, and bulky, and I can tweak the hell out of it, I can go to just about anywhere and find more crap to stick in it. I can find games for it, I can find just about any software that my heart desires....Maybe the Mac will come of age. Maybe apple will finally either decide to realease a stylish and ergonomic box that does everything it is supposed to do, rather than a stylish box that makes you hate the people who decided the keyboard should be for a 10 yr old and the mouse for a smurf with a round hand and three fingers, maybe they will finally start to co-operate with other OS and Software developers and try to make their equipment more compatible. Maybe not.....

Rags

Wombat
14th August 1999, 15:45
Hey, if they're faster, and the clones are good, maybe I'll be running a G4 from a clone company, running PPC-Linux.

merchant2112
14th August 1999, 16:24
ya but look at it this way. how long was the sony psx out befor pc stuff surpassed it.

it looks good now but in 6 to 8 months the pc will surpass it again (with the right hardware) then until the psx3 comes out ect... it will sit in a corner gathering dust. for 2 years while sony ect.... milks sales as long as they can. to those who don't have a real computer (not some windows ce console unit that cannot be upgraded to the latest and greatest hardware (video sound cpu memory ect.....


just my opinion i might be wrong (althoue it might be worth it as long as thire no bugs in the system) (what am i saying microsoft is involved no bugs ??? can't happen)
the above statement only aplys if what i rember reading is true (that sony ps2 and sega dreamcast are based on windows ce os)
------------------
what is up with this it lost my pasword and i can't post as merchant2
oh and it woun't email me becuase it says more than one email account exists.

[This message has been edited by merchant2112 (edited 08-14-1999).]

Chris H
14th August 1999, 16:46
The video chip used in the Sega Dreamcast is a PowerVR Series 2. VideoLogic have produced an AGP card with this chip called the Neon250. It's due for release any time now and is meant to compete well in terms of speed with a TNT2.

Wombat
14th August 1999, 16:59
I know the cards are designed, but I don't think enough chips are going to be produced for us to see them any time.

-Wombat

Tn
15th August 1999, 09:21
Doh, double post. Whoohoo my first too.

[This message has been edited by Tn (edited 08-15-1999).]

Tn
15th August 1999, 09:24
Hmm... it uses PowerVR which was developed by NEC, NEC makes chips for Matrox...

Slartibartfast
19th August 1999, 03:46
Let's get something straight.

Macintosh computers have PHENOMENAL hardware.

But... although car analogies suck...

It's like a Ferrari... pulling a Mac Truck. That Mac Truck is the MacOS operating system, the biggest piece of bloatware to hit a processor since Windows 3.1 reared its ugly head.

If you could run a better OS on a Mac, or if they'd just DITCH the damn MacOS concept and start over... everybody would be happier and the platform would FLY.

As it is, if you sit a G3-233 and a P2-233 side by side, and double-click Microsoft Word on both machines, the P2 loads it in... oh... ten seconds. The G3 loads it in (I am not kidding) well over a minute. Close to a minute and a half. This is Apple's idea, obviously, of "twice as fast as a P2". Hmm...

- Ash (I gave up, it's my new name)

------------------
Portions of this message may have been Copyright 1999, Jorden van der Elst. All rights (and lefts) reserved.
------------------------
Specs? You want specs? Yeah. Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my boomstick! It's a twelve gauge double barreled Remington, S-Mart's top-of-the-line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop Smart. Shop S-mart. Ya got that?! Now I swear, the next one of you primates, even touches me...

Wombat
19th August 1999, 06:48
Ash,
I'll give you that Macs have great CPU's, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the hardware. SCSI is nice, but expensive. Also, the bussing is still working to catch up. Something AGP-ish is missing. At least they're using PCI now, though. Daughtercards for the CPU were great, but where did they go? We won't even start on the iMac.

Tn
19th August 1999, 17:16
Yes in theory Macs are faster... Worst thing about macs though is lack of choice(competition) in everything but that is what makes it Apple's computer.

Helmchen2000
20th August 1999, 07:36
I'm forced to use a Mac and I hate to work with it. OK it has a great processor and the rest of the hardware is alright and really expensive. For the same amount of money you can buy a real great PC that doesn't lose in any discipline against a Mac.

But that damn OS is really shitty especially if you have to integrate it with other systems. I plugged all systems I have to administrate simply together without problems except for the Mac. Since we get someone who is able to connect a linux PC with the Mac we are forced to use the good old 1,4MB 3,5" network.

The other point why I hate working with it is that I can't force it to do what I want as I can in win or unix based systems. It's more like a console 'Press this button to get that action' no chance to change.
OK, this is good for beginners you teach them the OS and they can use every Mac on earth, if you use PCs you have to teach every single machine. But i'm not a beginner.

Helmchen

[This message has been edited by Helmchen2000 (edited 08-20-1999).]

Tn
20th August 1999, 11:24
Yeah, that is what comes with having no/little choice, means less competition and less price drops.