Jump to content
3000AD Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Simparadox

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Shelton, CT
  1. Simparadox

    GeForce 4

    quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Btw, I just looked at the Tom's hardware benchmarks... DAMN the ti4600 is about 3 TIMES faster than my gf2 mx400..... awww I want one but I have no idea when I'll get able to get one.... I hope prices will drop quickly.... If you really want to feel inferior go check out nvidia.com's "performance analyzer". When my friend bought his GF3 (a few weeks ago) to upgrade from his MX he checked the performance gain according to nVidia. Turns out it was something like 400% faster. Somehow I think nVidia's numbers are a bit skewed...
  2. Simparadox

    GeForce 4

    quote:Originally posted by Greg Miller: I wouldn't think that Nvidia, and Visiontek would let BestBuy get away with wholesaling them in at $99, then retailing them out at $399. I believe that BestBuy is making on these cards, at most, is $100 profit; and even that is a big stretch to assume. Let's not forget the Manufacturer and Middle Man profits now; that would be a lot to squeeze out of $99.Speaking from experience, almost everything you see in major retail stores is selling at 200-400% mark-up. Don't forget that Best Buy buys GF4's in giant bulk quantities and the "middle man" does the same from the manufacturer.
  3. Simparadox

    A sad time for Linux gaming.

    quote:Originally posted by Gomez: quote:(mac is not all that great either)In defense of Mac (I know this is a linux thread), I would like to state that Mac IS great...but not for the things you do, most likely. Apple has it's problems, no doubt. So does Microsloth. However, Macintosh has, from the beginning, been a graphics platform. If you ask 100 graphic artists which platform they prefer...you'll likely get Macintosh out of 75% of them. And here's why: WYSIWYG I have had this problem with PCs many times myself, and I'm doing only simplistic printing (or was, my printer is broken now). Macintosh is 100% WYSIWYG. All applications (that print). Heck, IIRC, SC said that he had problems with the company that printed up the manual, because they use QuarkExpress (a Mac program), and he used MS Word (on his PC). Not to mention, the manual was (according to Word) going to be 110+ pages, but Quark took the same text, at the same type face, with the same graphics, and printed it in 76. Another fine example of WYSIWYG. Word isn't. Another small reason why Mac is a great machine. Last I checked, Mac processors have not breached the 1GHz level. Yet if you run the exact same process on Adobe Photoshop on a 2.2 GHz PC, vs a top of the line Mac. The Mac will complete it first, hands down. MHz isn't everything. Macintosh is an excellent platform for this, and many other reasons. However, perhaps you anti-mac people don't use these applications. It is NOT a gaming machine, though it will run games. And that is likely why a lot of people do not like it. Anti-Linux people are similar to anti-Mac people. They just don't realize what they're missing. They haven't used the applications that really SHINE on the other platform. Heck, some of them haven't even USED the other platform. Their opinion comes from opinions of others. Personally, I have used all three. All three have excellent merits in certain areas. Overall, I would say that none of them is really better than any of the others. Bah, I guess I'm a liar. I need to keep going . Anyway, there's not much I really need to argue with here. Just wanted to clarify a few things... ...if you take a top of the line Mac vs. a top of the line PC the PC will come out on top in almost every task you give it. This isn't a fault in Mac's processor line since they are "faster" (and by this I just mean that a cpu rated at x mhz will beat a PC cpu rated at the same "speed"). But a top of the line G4 isn't going to be a 2ghz Pentium 4 CPU. Anyway, I'm not completely familiar with how the Mac architecture works, but I believe there is some kind of optimization that graphical applications like Photoshop take advantage of. That said, most designers use Macs out of habit. A few years ago they were superior in a way that mattered, but when you figure cost vs. effectiveness a PC with a high-end graphics card (and I don't mean a gaming one ala GF3/4) will perform just as well as the Mac and still end up cheaper. I do think OS X kicks some serious ass, though, and that makes it great as a desktop system. Unfortunetly, I have no desire to be forced into using Apple's proprietary hardware. I'm still waiting for the day when I can run the hardware I want while still getting the best operating system. And to bring this back on topic... has anyone mentioned that Darwin (OS X's GUI) is built on top of BSD, which is a flavor of UNIX? And if BSD is suitable to be used as a desktop environment then you better believe that Linux is as well. Here's the problem: for that to happen a company has to be willing to invest insane amounts of time and resources into doing it. Apple was willing to, but Apple knows that they've got their current userbase to buy it. Anyone who has to compete with Micro$oft is almost guaranteed to fail, so I can't imagine it seems very appealing to them. This is my theory why none of the major Linux distributions are up to the task. They may want to make their setup programs nice and user-friendly and allow you to get into Linux (along with xfree86) with a minimum of fuss, but in the end they're still just doing this to a) save the time of people who already know Linux or make it easier for tech-savvy people who want to learn Linux and know what they're getting into. I don't think those (relatively small, even combined) groups justify spending the time and energy to build a Windows killer on top of Linux. Just my opinion. [ 02-14-2002, 20:10: Message edited by: Simparadox ]
  4. Simparadox

    Limp "Bizquick" fans

    quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: for all you limp bizquick fans (or non fans)... read this article and see what a totally unoriginal, rich boy, loser this punk Fred Durst is. i think when he wrote that song "my way or the highway" he was talkin about himself lol. More of Dursts infamyActually, it turns out a lot of the bad publicity around the tour was just put out by some of the band's detractors. The letter spread around to most major music news sources and websites was edited from its original content. I've read about it at four or five places already, but I'll try to find some links. Regardless, Limp Bizkit still sucks royally. Wes Borland has some talent, but the band is horrible. Generic music, unoriginal lyrics.. egh ugh bad taste in mouth. I think I'm one of the few people who actually think LB was always bad. Disturbed's cool, but give me Tool (or King Crimson if you want to go back a few years) any day.
  5. Simparadox

    GeForce 4

    quote:Originally posted by Akira: Greg, I have to question your rant. If I were in the retail business to make money, I somehow doubt that I'd bother buying stock of the G4 unless I was makeing at least a 100% profit (meaning I buy for 200 and sell for 400). And chains like BB very rarely make less than a 200% profit on their merchandise. It's how they stay in business and why they can have some pretty nice sales to generate traffic without hurting their bottom line. Then again, I could be wrong. They could be paying everyone min. wage and cutting everything close to the bone. But I doubt it...You're not wrong. I'm sure Best Buy buys the GeForce4 cards for a whole lot less than they're selling them for. If they actually did sell them out at that price they'd still be making a "profit" on the cards (or at least cutting very close to even). In the long run, though, they wouldn't be making enough money off the batch to really make any money. In selling 100 units at that price they'd probably only make as much profit as they would off of 20 (disclaimer: I put absoltely 0 minutes of thought into the math up there, it could be more like 30 or even more like 10... don't feel like thinking about it) and on top of that they'd be down 100 units instead of 20. Anyway, as much as the GF4 kicks ass I'm not really convinced there's any reason to upgrade to one. I've got a GeForce3 (just the plain old vanilla kind, no titanium here...) in this computer and a Radeon8500 in the computer next to me. The 8500's a bit more powerful, but not enough to make any noticeable performance difference in one single game I play (and I don't like the FSAA quite as much). I have no doubt the GeForce4 will produce even better numbers than the 8500, but I'm not sure why I'd need better performance (don't get me wrong, though, I like to waste money so I'll probably have one in a week or two ). I'm a bit worried that video cards are falling into the "Why do I need more?" rut that cpus are in. I feel like there's no reason to get excited about PC upgrades anymore . EDIT: On second thought, it's all the fault of game developers. Damn it, SC, go make a game that'll bring my GF3 and R8500 to their knees so I have a reason to upgrade! [ 02-13-2002, 23:17: Message edited by: Simparadox ]
  6. Simparadox

    A sad time for Linux gaming.

    quote:Originally posted by Joel Schultz: But X11 is not a desktop. And it is the desktop that needs to be unified. Pick one and toss the other. Why?I'm not going to extend this topic or argue about this any further after this (since I'm drifting off-topic too), but I just wanted to say... Making one standard desktop for Linux is a bad idea. No matter how much I'd like Linux to become more mainstream I do not want it to become Winclone. I'd rather see some kind of standard for X11 windowing systems developed. That way users aren't forced into using GNOME or KDE (why? well, I run Linux on an older box and like to use blackbox on it - KDE and GNOME are both too slow), but whatever system they do use will have to be based on this standard while still offering its own features. And, of course, it'd make things easier on developers.
  7. Simparadox

    A sad time for Linux gaming.

    quote:Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee: quote:Originally Posted By: Simparadox Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer. It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer. The thing is most users shouldn't have to do this. I love linux, I really do, but now days for most people leisure time is something not to waste.(And I'm saying this in the BCM forum, heh ) One of the reasons I feel windows is popular is that you DON'T have to do this, and even now, unless you have a almost BRAND new computer, versions of most of your drivers are in XP. I agree that using xfree86 to set up Linux is very user friendly, most average home users would probably feel that it is a headache, more so than Windows. I'm not sure I follow. In most distributions the setup is actually simpler than the Windows setup. Like Windows, most distros will automatically setup your hdd partitions for you, set LILO up automatically, and then install. In most cases you won't even need to pick what packages, just choose something along the lines of "desktop installation". Unless you're referring to the login screen, but most people I know use the Windows login anyway... EDIT: I should probably clarify that what I meant is the xfree86 installation is seamlessly integrated with the Linux installation in most distros. The combined set-up for Linux/X follows almost exactly the same procedure as the windows setup program. [ 02-13-2002, 22:02: Message edited by: Simparadox ]
  8. Simparadox

    A sad time for Linux gaming.

    Heh, oh boy. When I started reading this thread I swore I wouldn't reply. I've been away from the forums for over a month, I've just started checking again, I should just keep my nose out of this... ...but there's no way in hell it's gonna happen. There's a bunch of stuff I want to reply to and I don't want to do it in multiple posts so there's going to be a lot of quotes here. Sorry if I misquote someone. Here goes: quote:Originally posted by Dredd Down with Linux! Long live Windows! HORRAH! There's really no reason for me to reply to this other than to say... "Wha...?" I didn't know people felt this way and I can't even fathom why anyone could possibly want to see Linux go down. quote:Originally posted by Xierxior linux is not a gamming platform it was origionaly unix which was a (server) os Linux _is not_ Unix. Linux is a powerful, stable, fast, multi-purpose operating system that is equally up to the task of being used on home, workstation, or server computers. Most people picture the bash shell when they think Linux and this leads to the two most common misconceptions that I hear.. 1) "Linux? Oh, that's old. It looks like DOS. I have Windows now." (from the not so tech-savvy) or 2) "Linux? That's too hard to use for home computers." Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer. It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer. quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr There are VERY few hardcore gamers running Linux, who don't already have a Windoze box (or even a dual-boot one), so, WHATS the point?!? If you're arguing that Linux gaming won't ever become popular (which I think you are... but I could be wrong) then you're probably right. If you're saying that there's no reason to game on Linux, however, then you're wrong. First of all, if Linux had the same driver support as Windows it should, theoretically, provide better game performance. More importantly, though, it lets me play games on the platform _I_ want to use. And, of course, people who actually want to use Winblows should be allowed to play games there. Anyway, I'm not going to get off onto a tangent about open standards... ...as far as Linux gaming ever coming of age, I doubt it. It won't happen right now, that's for sure. It's not Linux's fault, though, and it has nothing to do with its worth as a desktop or gaming OS. The reason's simple, I think... Linux-savvy gamer: "I'd use Linux all the time, if only my games ran on it and it was easier to install them." Game developer: "I'd develop my games for Linux if more gamers used Linux." Linux developer: "We'd find easier installation methods if only more games were developed for Linux." I could be wrong, but this seems to be the general idea with members of the above groups that I actually encounter. quote:Any OS that makes you set the vertical refresh rate of your monitor before you can install it is a WASTE of time and resources.Red Hat actually does require this. I don't know about the newest versions, but my 7-ish version did. Most of the time it finds the right refresh right on its own, though. Overall, though, I'd say Red Hat is the worst choice for a desktop operating system. Try SuSE or Mandrake. quote:MAC enviorments. (mac is not all that great either) (off-topic, but it's late and I don't care. Sorry, SC ) Just felt like randomly saying that I hate Apple and everything Steve Jobs and his company stands for. That said, OSX is great and I'd use it in a second if it were available for my PC. I still find it hard to believe that people call Microsoft evil because they want to have a strangle-hold on the OS market when not only is Apple trying to gain control of the OS market, but they want you to buy their hardware too. Eugh.... quote:Personally I am glad its dying.Linux is far from dying. It's home user-base is actually growing. It's business user-base is growing at an even greater rate. Not an "over-take M$ and conquer the world" rate, but enough that most of my friends, even the less computer-savvy ones, know what Linux is and have probably seen or used it at least once. My mom even knows about, since she works with a program to put it on low-end computers that are given to low-income families. quote:Exactly how could you improve on say Windows 2000/XP?? In an x86 enviorment there is simply no other way to approach an OS IMO. Sure you could make it more stable, more secure ETc. AS far as the core concetps behind windows or the MAC OS they cannot be improved upon with todays technology.As a quick note, Apple's don't use x86 architecture. Kind of seems like you're grouping Mac and x86 together. Anyway, there are plenty of ways to approach an OS. As Menchise pointed out, Windows is pretty bloated and that's bad. And yes, you can make an OS more stable and more secure. As a matter of fact, there's no reason not to. If you admit that M$ isn't doing enough to make Windows more stable/secure than you're admitting exactly why Linux is a worthy competitor (by the way, I'm still in shock there are people outside of MS who think it isn't). Ugh. I'm really sorry about this long post, I didn't think I'd have to reply to so much. I'll admit, this is the first time I've ever had to defend Linux (usually it's the other way around). I'm kind of happy that Linux has reached the point where people aren't just saying "Yeah, whatever, use Linux.". There's more stuff I want to say, but Menchise has it all covered. Except for one thing: what the hell are you talking about that windows is more stable than Linux/xfree86? I don't know who said it originally so I won't quote, but Windows (even XP/2k) is both more crash prone than xfree86 and less able to recover from program crashes.
  9. Simparadox

    BCM XP - The Grand Scheme Unveiled

    Dear god, SC. That's incredible. Holy sh!t. If you actually come through with this (which I'm sure you will) I think you'll have passed from developer to minor diety status.
  10. Simparadox

    Car nightmares...

    quote:Originally posted by Fox: Damnit, I want my obscenely large, American-sized cupholder!! Hm. If they still come with a built-in flower vase maybe you could find some room in there
  11. Simparadox

    Car nightmares...

    quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: Take a parent. Sucks but.... Take a girl so you look like a couple. I think taking my girlfriend would be worse than taking one of my parents. I can see it already... "Why don't you get that one? It's soooo cute..." And next thing you know I'm driving home in a New Beetle. [ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Simparadox ]
  12. Simparadox

    Thy Popups Stoppeth!

    I've had the program for a while, but I just have to say... ...the subject of this topic had me laughing like crazy.
  13. Simparadox

    Car nightmares...

    quote:Originally posted by Fendi: If you want a WRX then go for the Mk1 version and not the crappy ugly looking Mk2. The Mk1 is far far better looking and will actually outaccelerate the Mk2 (unmodified in both cases). I've got the Mk1 which I chose over the Mk2 on the basis above. Oh yeah the only thing that the Mk2 beats the original version is the top end speed by 1 mph. Oh yeah another good car that I would recommend is the Mitsubishi Lancer GSR Evolution series. I almost got myself an EVO III while shopping for the car but the looks of the WRX just enthraled me. Sigh... I live in America. It's a miracle Subaru brought the WRX here at all. Although I'm not really planning on buying one. Definetly fast as hell, but I wasn't too impressed with the interior or the build quality. Of course, that's just my opinion. Right now I'm definetly leaning in the direction of a CL-S. It might not be the fastest car in the world, but it's definetly not slow and it's about as luxurious as my last car for $10,000 less. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Simparadox ]
  14. Simparadox

    Car nightmares...

    Hate making multiple posts in a row, so I'm just responding to a bunch of you here... quote:Originally posted by Fendi: Then search around for a good second hand car. Unfortunetly, that's not really an option for me. Maybe I'm spoiled or just way too choosy, but there are four cars that I'm seriously considering buying (Acura RSX-S, Acura CL-S, Subaru Impreza WRX, or a Nissan Altima 3.5SE) and all of them are new to 2002 (although I'd probably consider a 1999 or 2000 CL 3.0 if I could find a good deal on one). Plus, I like being backed up the dealership. It's nice knowing that they're there if I ever have a problem with the car I can't handle myself. quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: Welcome to Capitalism Tac and especially Simparadox. They don't want to waste the company dime if you don't look serious. Hey, don't dis capitalism. But.. it's not even their willingness to deal with me (it's almost understandable... I doubt many 19 year olds seem very serious when they ask about a $30k car) but their actual attitude. For one thing it's their job to sell cars. I realize they're paid on commission so it seems incredibly foolish to pass up any opportunity to make a sale. quote:Originally posted by Tac: Id suggest you get a Daewoo Leganza. Its a really awesome car with all the comforts..and at only 15k its a STEAL. I agree. I generally look down on little Korean imports (*cough* Kia and Hyundai *cough*) but a friend of mine has a Leganza and I'm really impressed. It's not my style, though. I doubt I'll ever (willingly) buy anything with more than 2 doors or less than 200 horsepower (although I guess the WRX and Altima are exceptions to that first rule... eck).
  15. Simparadox

    Car nightmares...

    Sorry about this little rant everyone (since it's totally off-topic, even for an off-topic forum ). So, y'know, just delete it or something, but I needed somewhere to vent... Six months ago I got into an accident and my car (my beautiful SC400 ) was totalled. The accident was not my fault (I was, more or less, pushed off the road by another car), but the police report made it sound like both myself and the other person were equally at fault. So my insurance goes through the roof (as if it wasn't high enough already) and to make matters worse I don't get anywhere near a fair value for my car from the insurance company. Whatever. Anyway, I decided to wait a few months so that I could add a few thousand to the money from insurance and I've been driving my dad's Mustang ever since. Over the past couple of weeks I've been going to dealerships, test driving cars, checking prices, etc. This is the first time I've had to do this (the SC was my first car) and I think my frustration level is just below the "flip out and go on a rampage" level. Why is it that cars salesmen think they're doing you a favor by selling you a car? Isn't that their job? Aren't they the ones making money when I drive the car off the lot? Acura dealerships, specifically, have been the worst. I've been to two, and at both of them it took almost an hour of arguing just to get a damn ten or fifteen minute test drive. What's even worse is that the only cars I wanted to test drive were an RSX-S and a CL-S - the two most inexpensive cars Acura makes. I could have easily taken out a check and paid for the RSX-S on the spot - yet it still took an endless amount of bickering to try the car. And don't even get me started at what I went through at the Subaru dealership. What makes it even worse is that they made me wait a week for a credit check which only confirmed that I'd been making payments flawlessly on my old car for a year and a half. Is it just Connecticut? Do we just have the worst salespeople on Earth? Is it my age? Why the **** is it so hard to get salesperson to actually sell me something? Why is it that I have to get into an argument with them just to get a tiny bit of satisfiction? Isn't it bad enough I had to go through a bad accident, deal with the person who hit me, and take a beating from my insurance because of it? Ugh. Sorry, everyone. Had to get that off my chest... [ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Simparadox ]