I'm PC

[bloodline]

I also found Microsoft's new marketing strategy confusing and uninspired... Perhaps they could have spent that $300,000,000 on making Vista better... Though I guess M$ have proven over and over again that they can't solve problems by throwing money at them...

[bloodline]

motorollin wrote:
What is this thread about?

Ahhh... U haven't seen Microsoft's new $300,000,000 adverts, which attempt to show why Vista is good and Apple is bad :-)

[bloodline]

@Karlos

You know full well that exec is totally unsuited to a multi-CPU environment... It's a problem we've been mulling over with AROS for a few years... The Amiga is a dinosaur!

[bloodline]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

bloodline wrote:
@Karlos

You know full well that exec is totally unsuited to a multi-CPU environment... It's a problem we've been mulling over with AROS for a few years... The Amiga is a dinosaur!

At least the Amiga isn't based on the Commodore 64, yet this analogy still applies to the PC.

Hehe, speel, once the BIOS has done its job and removed from the address space the PC is the most modern machine money can buy ;-). My MPBs even lose the BIOS for EFI... :-)

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:

bloodline wrote:
@Karlos

You know full well that exec is totally unsuited to a multi-CPU environment... It's a problem we've been mulling over with AROS for a few years... The Amiga is a dinosaur!

I didn't say it was suited, but if you stop and think about it, a collection of host native threads in the same address space can still run on multiple cores, right? That was my understanding at least.

Sure, but without Processor affinity, threads are going to be very inefficient... With Exec, every task switch will require a cache flush... and every time you need to call forbid() all the Processors have to halt... basically... exec is just horribly inefficient on multi-processor systems... :-(

[bloodline]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Microsoft isn't putting it's money for nothing on .NET. Everyone, and especially Intel, knows the adressing structure of x86 sucks balls (figuratively speaking of course, otherwise it'd not be bad).

There really isn't anything wrong with a modern x86 chip! The x86-64 is even very nice!

They all want to get rid of it, but they need it as well, to keep the compatibility advantage they have over their competition.

No one wants to get rid of the x86! Especially for the reason you just listed! :-D

With the Xbox 360, Microsoft didn't need this compatibility so they chose not to use x86.

M$ wanted cheap... IBM offered a cheap muilticore CPU, IBM own a PPC licence but not an x86 one, so they use that... if IBM owned a MIPS licence that would use that instead... The choice of CPU architecture in the consoles is not a technical one... it's a cost/political one.

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Karlos wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
But isn't fallout 3 also available on the PS3?

Yeah, but the difference is PC games usually scale up to the hardware. My gfx card alone has almost 1GB of RAM. I get to play it at a stupid resolution, with full anti aliasing, full HDR rendering, maximum detail for every setting and a draw distance that makes exploring any open world game a real treat.

What does any current console give you in that regard?

Well, the PS3 supports 1080P wich actually means a kinda resolution of 1920x1080 with progressive scan (say, VGA)
If I had the money, I'd go for the PS3, since one can easily transform it (There's an Ubuntu build for it, and it comes standard with USB ports) to a complete computer with a 7 core CPU.

What, only 1080? Is that it? :lol:

It may give you 7 cores, but you can't use them effectively at all, the hardware is too proprietry.

On the other hand, I have 4 CPU cores sharing 12MB of L2 cache and 192 GPU cores, all of which I can write C/C++ for directly ;-)

17 Billion Interation/Second gravity simulation as a desktop toy

Point me towards some decent nbody sims... I want to use my 2.8Ghz Core2Duo for something fun! Cheers :-)