Let the scene design a computer!!!!
category: general [glöplog]
Yeah! Why wouldn't the scene design a computer? Crazy? I don't think so.... Here. I'll start with my specs:
- 4x Transmeta CPU at 1 Ghz each
- 2x ATI R300 at 400 Mhz each
- 512 meg of 800 Mhz DDR RAM expandable
- Terratec 5.1 sound engine with full 24-bit DAC / ADC
- TV TUNER and video I / O
- SCSI 2, FIREWIRE, USB 2 ports
- 800 Mhz DMA PORT
Metal casing alla SONY MSX 2+ BIT black and red BIT system equipped with FOUR 80 mm low RPM ventilators. bundled with 80 GIG internal HD + PCMCIA port + alluminum keys
33
- 4x Transmeta CPU at 1 Ghz each
- 2x ATI R300 at 400 Mhz each
- 512 meg of 800 Mhz DDR RAM expandable
- Terratec 5.1 sound engine with full 24-bit DAC / ADC
- TV TUNER and video I / O
- SCSI 2, FIREWIRE, USB 2 ports
- 800 Mhz DMA PORT
Metal casing alla SONY MSX 2+ BIT black and red BIT system equipped with FOUR 80 mm low RPM ventilators. bundled with 80 GIG internal HD + PCMCIA port + alluminum keys
33
- Something that generates video and audio
- Some way of programming said thing
- Some way of programming said thing
1) LINUX
2) LINUX
Transmeta - Linux, get it ? :P
2) LINUX
Transmeta - Linux, get it ? :P
Yeah, first equip a machine with four hyper-flexible CPUs and then put a 1960's x86 only OS on it. GOOD IDEA, IDIOT *slap*
Apart from that, what do I want with a machine that at most 100 people will have? We've already got the PPC amigas for such misguided souls.
And as impressive as the rest of your "specs" are, I don't see anything you couldn't get in every other computer store in maybe 1.5 years. Ok, perhaps with a CPU that actually has performance.
Conclusion: Please go back fscking your 1m stuffed Tux puppet and let the scene do demos, ok?
Apart from that, what do I want with a machine that at most 100 people will have? We've already got the PPC amigas for such misguided souls.
And as impressive as the rest of your "specs" are, I don't see anything you couldn't get in every other computer store in maybe 1.5 years. Ok, perhaps with a CPU that actually has performance.
Conclusion: Please go back fscking your 1m stuffed Tux puppet and let the scene do demos, ok?
CPU -- 64 bit 'super-thom' @ 450 GHz w/carbon wafer
GPU -- 1 Kbit 'ultra-thom' realtime raytracer @ 150 GHz w/graham wafer
RAM -- 64K 8 bit unified memory architecture
storage -- 1 bps punch card reader
display -- 4 LED lights that can flash on/off
And a healthy dose of reality might be a good idea too...
GPU -- 1 Kbit 'ultra-thom' realtime raytracer @ 150 GHz w/graham wafer
RAM -- 64K 8 bit unified memory architecture
storage -- 1 bps punch card reader
display -- 4 LED lights that can flash on/off
And a healthy dose of reality might be a good idea too...
A TV Tuner.
Four(?) processors that aren't excactly famous for performance.
I now know you're retarded. Thanks.
Four(?) processors that aren't excactly famous for performance.
I now know you're retarded. Thanks.
a real "scene machine" would be something that would include _hardware_ emulation of x86 pc, amiga (ecs&aga), c64/128/VIC-20, zx spectrum, atari (8bit/ST/falcon), several consoles, and and and... sweet dreams ! =)
dip: whats the real difference between hardware and software emulation .. as long as the emulation in question is fast and accurate enough?
nah .. personally i don't feel 'retro' anymore. lately i've come to appreciate the pros/cons with the pc platform. the best thing with it is that aslong as our hardware evolve so will our beloved scene. as opposed to having a fixed platform (even if it IS a really good one).
sure, one could argue about the quality of many releases on the pc platform, but the fact is that it's most likely the most suitable one for those who intend to do serious stuff over a longer period of time, mainly because they're not (as much) hardware-restricted.
my advice - want a fixed platform? buy yourself a console (xbox perhaps? for easy adaption), do some
really cool stuff on it. and _maybe_ people will follow.
33: as kb said, in given time people will most likely have the stuff you mention in your specs (some already have most of it), apart from the cpu perhaps, but then it will only get better, so why restrict yourself with a rigged platform ?
oh and why use linux?
while your at it creating a scenecomputer why not organize some joint-effort OS specifically for demos.. ?
however i doubt anyone would have the time nor energy to do so (am i right ?), because we're still just doing this as a spare-time hobby.
oh well, who gives a shit :p
nah .. personally i don't feel 'retro' anymore. lately i've come to appreciate the pros/cons with the pc platform. the best thing with it is that aslong as our hardware evolve so will our beloved scene. as opposed to having a fixed platform (even if it IS a really good one).
sure, one could argue about the quality of many releases on the pc platform, but the fact is that it's most likely the most suitable one for those who intend to do serious stuff over a longer period of time, mainly because they're not (as much) hardware-restricted.
my advice - want a fixed platform? buy yourself a console (xbox perhaps? for easy adaption), do some
really cool stuff on it. and _maybe_ people will follow.
33: as kb said, in given time people will most likely have the stuff you mention in your specs (some already have most of it), apart from the cpu perhaps, but then it will only get better, so why restrict yourself with a rigged platform ?
oh and why use linux?
while your at it creating a scenecomputer why not organize some joint-effort OS specifically for demos.. ?
however i doubt anyone would have the time nor energy to do so (am i right ?), because we're still just doing this as a spare-time hobby.
oh well, who gives a shit :p
stellan, I understand perfectly the issues of aging hardware.... It's always possible to have durable and expandable hardware ans still be compatible with everything that exists in the current mainstream. That is why I chosen a platform based on the Transmeta "crusoe" platform, as it is a very flexible chip to start with. The crusoe can be multiplexed into grids of CPU and has patches for x86 instructionset supplied by transmeta. They are highly scalable. You don't have to solder the chip on the PCB, you can have an expandable system and even leave room to add more cpus and with higher clock rates.
Just look at, for example the Socket A architecture. Socket A was introduced somewher around 1999 and it has now grown to still be workable even with new motherboard. That what I have thought about the crusoe chip.
Linux is just some basis that I used, an excuse for the question about "yeah, but what OS?", and still you could run Windows on a crusoe, but I don't think it could properly work on multiple cpus, maybe I'm wrong thoe, since Windows runs on dual Athlon configs.....
I also tought of a system that would be easy to carry and would have a built in keyboard and would sell for somewhere around 500 USD / EUR ..... A really funky system. I really liked the design of the MSX 2+ series !!
The graphics board could probably be on a second PCB on top of the motherboard, but I guess that would complicate the design and raise costs.....
Anyhow I think it would be sweat to have a super robust super powerful PC that you could carry as easily as an Amiga A1200 and be like twice as powerful as the top PCs of it's time.
33
Just look at, for example the Socket A architecture. Socket A was introduced somewher around 1999 and it has now grown to still be workable even with new motherboard. That what I have thought about the crusoe chip.
Linux is just some basis that I used, an excuse for the question about "yeah, but what OS?", and still you could run Windows on a crusoe, but I don't think it could properly work on multiple cpus, maybe I'm wrong thoe, since Windows runs on dual Athlon configs.....
I also tought of a system that would be easy to carry and would have a built in keyboard and would sell for somewhere around 500 USD / EUR ..... A really funky system. I really liked the design of the MSX 2+ series !!
The graphics board could probably be on a second PCB on top of the motherboard, but I guess that would complicate the design and raise costs.....
Anyhow I think it would be sweat to have a super robust super powerful PC that you could carry as easily as an Amiga A1200 and be like twice as powerful as the top PCs of it's time.
33
of course. i agree, i kind of miss the easy transportation of the A500/A1200. however we have laptops nowdays, even if they're not half as cool.
but who'd be brave enough to design it and possibly cough up the cash to manufacture it? perhaps taking pre-orders for a 'custom built' computer would be a solution ?
in theory it's a nice idea, but without proper funding it'll never pass the idea-stage.
have you thought about how to make this happen ?
if you're REALLY serious about this, i suggest you put up a small questionaire on the web about how large interest there is, what the computer should/could contain and how much people are willing to pay for such a computer etc.
but who'd be brave enough to design it and possibly cough up the cash to manufacture it? perhaps taking pre-orders for a 'custom built' computer would be a solution ?
in theory it's a nice idea, but without proper funding it'll never pass the idea-stage.
have you thought about how to make this happen ?
if you're REALLY serious about this, i suggest you put up a small questionaire on the web about how large interest there is, what the computer should/could contain and how much people are willing to pay for such a computer etc.
Yeah, let the scene design a computer the scene cannot afford. Brilliant. Luckily there is c64 that is a standard system, cheap too, and all software production is taken over by demoscene etc. these days.
Computers suxx!!! I should better get laid as soon as possible ;P
However,. I am not really sure if women would be better...
: I didn't say that at all. I really would have rejoiced if BeOS (in its first form w/ the DB based filesystem etc) had taken off, or if somebody would design an OS on somewhat more modern design principles. I wouldn't want Windows on a Scene computer either, don't worry.how about a pc that automatically upgrades the cpu, ram and gpu as needed?
Amiga
let's design a perfect os/platform, make huge money selling it and buy optimus a woman!
ENIAC STRIKES BACK!
let's design the perfect os/platform, and sell it to the panicked microsoft/intel for a huge amounts of money, before actually creating it.
This way:
- we'll be stinking rich,
- they can throw the plans to the garbage pile with a sigh,
-we don't have to throw away our already coded win32-Dx stuffs.
so everyone will be happy.
This way:
- we'll be stinking rich,
- they can throw the plans to the garbage pile with a sigh,
-we don't have to throw away our already coded win32-Dx stuffs.
so everyone will be happy.
at the moment, each hardware is outdated after 9 month. there is not a single demo that even scratches the possibilies of a geforce4mx. and not a single demo that justufies a geforce3 style card with pixel/vertex shaders (don't say envbump now, that's dx7 everywhere except in nvidia-country!). you can do 120.000 vertices per frame on a geforce2mx without swithing on your brain!
we don't need better hardware, we need better coders and better demos.
we don't need better hardware, we need better coders and better demos.
yes, just take a look at the Amiga scene... demos there are getting better every day, not the hardware!
just try to squeeze the full 100% out of your hardware and not code lameass 3d engines that, once seen on a R9700P manages to run decent.
just try to squeeze the full 100% out of your hardware and not code lameass 3d engines that, once seen on a R9700P manages to run decent.
Quote:
we don't need better hardware, we need better coders
In that case, cancel my order for a 450 GHz super computer and replace it with a two-headed coder with four brains, eight hands, and six eyes.
chaos is kinda right, but on the other side, demos aren't THAT bad at all. ever tried to have some publisher ship a PC port of your game? you're damn lucky if they don't require it to run on a piece-of-shit pc with a piece-of-shit piece of 3d hardware (tnt-class, for ex.). the threshold is 5 years btw (believe me or not). remember that nerds are not the major source of income ;-). only iD kinda gets away with this (and those who don't sell a fucking shit). they key is to be hip while politely exploiting hardware features. and regarding to *this*, people have a lot to learn.
oh and chaos, did the word 'fillrate' ever appear in front of your deliberately arrogant eyes?
"you can do 120.000 vertices per frame on a geforce2mx without swithing on your brain!"
well WOO-HOO. now THAT is a lot. phew.. that might just be enough for one of these high-tech seen-before-a-thousand-times generated objects with a hint of 'organic feel'.
as if the number of vertices would denote the coolness of that what appears on screen.
and besides that, you can fucking KILL the gf2mx (aswell as the gf4mx, or anything that lacks bandwidth and/or fillrate) with about anything that requires blending. and could it be possible that a lot of today's demofx require such? (and i'm not cheering for those demofx here (i'm guilty of the crime too), mind you, but that's another discussion)
having written a load of vertex and pixelshaders (not for demos tho, so that might make this statement lose some of it's relevance) over the past year, i haven't exactly found a gazillion things that couldn't possibly be achieved in other ways.
to close with, this cliche: it's overall visual results that matter, not tech.
"you can do 120.000 vertices per frame on a geforce2mx without swithing on your brain!"
well WOO-HOO. now THAT is a lot. phew.. that might just be enough for one of these high-tech seen-before-a-thousand-times generated objects with a hint of 'organic feel'.
as if the number of vertices would denote the coolness of that what appears on screen.
and besides that, you can fucking KILL the gf2mx (aswell as the gf4mx, or anything that lacks bandwidth and/or fillrate) with about anything that requires blending. and could it be possible that a lot of today's demofx require such? (and i'm not cheering for those demofx here (i'm guilty of the crime too), mind you, but that's another discussion)
having written a load of vertex and pixelshaders (not for demos tho, so that might make this statement lose some of it's relevance) over the past year, i haven't exactly found a gazillion things that couldn't possibly be achieved in other ways.
to close with, this cliche: it's overall visual results that matter, not tech.