youcan

"usenet identity" <usenet@jamesrobert.us> wrote in message
news:13kr1v27csau58f@corp.supernews.com...
> Moog wrote:
>> Robert Spanjaard illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:04 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Same here:
>>>>>>> http://www.jcsn.de/TrainerBilder/J_Moellers.jpg
>>>>>> Josef, that looks suspiciously like a gi you are wearing.
>>>>>> Style? Rank?
>>>>> Judo, 2nd Dan (black belt).
>>>>>
>>>> Good art! Good dedication.
>>>> Now I'm wondering how many Linux users are also martial artists. There
>>>> are four in my family.
>>> Nusantara here, which is based on pencak silat.
>>
>> Tai Chi here.
>>
>
> 1st Dan Shudokan

OK, who was trained by Obiwancumblowme

[ste parker]

Christopher Hunter wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Then you probably have no history in gaming or ever had a superb "gaming
>> rig". PC Games are generally so superior to their console counterparts
>> it is a joke ( in terms of textures, sound, HD quality etc). Yes there
>> are some exceptions. Without exceptions we might as well give up.
>
> Can I have a pint of what you're drinking? You are /entirely/ wrong. The
> graphical quality, the speed, and the sound quality are all /much/ better
> on a modern console than they are (or can be) on a PC. Even the very
> latest / fastest / highest specification PC "running" Windows can't compete
> with a £150 console.
>

Sorry, but from experience I'd have to say you're being quite wrong
also. I've got several PC conversions of console games which look
better than their console counterparts, and run and sound equally as
good if not better.

To compare a current game, Bioshock, having played the demo of both PC
and 360 versions, the PC version I had looks noticeably better than the
360 version (which was still quite stunning). It didn't run as
smoothly, but then my system isn't that great and I know that the latest
/ fastest/ highest spec systems (actually, not quite even latest and
greatest, just a little better than mine) can run it perfectly.

The gap /is/ now closer than it's ever been, but given a console has
(fairly) static hardware then the PC world can always leap ahead -
obviously often at a hefty cost. Also, the cheapest console I presume
you're trying to compare against is actually £190 at the moment.

--
[ste]

Hadron

"[ste parker]" <imaginey@hotmail.com> writes:

> Moog wrote:
>> [ste parker] illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>
>>> <...>
>>> OK, I've just gone and read that response. If some people can't
>>> accept that gaming now /is/ mainstream then fine, but there's
>>> certainly a hint of irony that the same people who are advocating
>>> Linux as not just for computer geeks and ready for a wider
>>> acceptance (which I agree with, to an extent) are so quick to tar
>>> videogames with the same brush.
>>
>> Ste, I may be the exception that breaks the rule here (and possinly
>> the topic), but I cannot abide PC gaming. I use console (XBox) and
>> PSP to do my gaming. I find PC
>> games to be longwinded, dull, lacking in character and much prefer to
>> play console games as they seem more "natural".
>>
>> I can't put my finger on why, but I really do not see a PC as a gaming
>> device. For me, it just doesn't feel right. That would go for Linux, Mac,
>> Windows or *BSD powered PC's equally BTW.
>>
>> Does that make sense, or does it make me mad?
>>
>
> If that's how you feel about it, that's how you feel. Regarding PC
> gaming though, to say console games are more natural then I guess
> that's what they were designed for - PCs obviously didn't come into
> the world with games in mind first and foremost. Looking at the 15 or

I own a couple of consoles. The only games I tend to play on them are
racing games or platform type stuff. And rarely.

The PC is far better for FPS, RPG, RTS primarily because of the extended
control methods (you can have a plug in console type controller if you
want too) in the mouse and keyboard. FPS on a console is waste of time
IMO. Time and time again it has been proven that console controls simply
can not give the control accuracy and flexibility of mouse/kbd. I fully
expect someone who has no idea about PC Gaming to now deny this - it
happens frequently in gaming groups and forums....

I also like the fact the PC games are often modded for more fun although
that is changing now (ie not unique to PCs) that the consoles feature
full hard disks.

Something else people miss is that IF you are willing to spend, state of
the art PCs are much more powerful than even the best console.


> so PC game boxes on the shelf, almost half of those /are/ former
> console games in my case, just stuff I didn't own the machine for and
> cost me about a tenner a game (at most) anyway, plus the most time
> I've probably spent playing games on the PC is old arcade stuff via
> MAME. Add in a Playstation pad adapter and they're all far and away
> from "normal" PC games. But still, it's not quite the same - I don't
> have a nice couch to sit on in the PC room for one - but horses for
> courses...
>
> ... and anyway, the point I make in the bit of post you quoted still
> stands

--
Se o filme fosse gaúcho...

Guerra Nas Estrelas -- Peleia no Firmamento

Hadron

Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Then you probably have no history in gaming or ever had a superb "gaming
>> rig". PC Games are generally so superior to their console counterparts
>> it is a joke ( in terms of textures, sound, HD quality etc). Yes there
>> are some exceptions. Without exceptions we might as well give up.
>
> Can I have a pint of what you're drinking? You are /entirely/ wrong. The
> graphical quality, the speed, and the sound quality are all /much/ better
> on a modern console than they are (or can be) on a PC. Even the very
> latest / fastest / highest specification PC "running" Windows can't compete
> with a £150 console.

Please. You are the absolute perfect example of someone who appears to
know nothing about the resolutions and processing speed capable from top
end SLI/PCI Express video cards on modern PC HW.

A console is *always* behind the curve for reasons which should be
relatively obvious.

>
> C.

--
Va Lobatón ¡y se pierde!.

Hadron

"[ste parker]" <imaginey@hotmail.com> writes:

> Christopher Hunter wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Then you probably have no history in gaming or ever had a superb "gaming
>>> rig". PC Games are generally so superior to their console counterparts
>>> it is a joke ( in terms of textures, sound, HD quality etc). Yes there
>>> are some exceptions. Without exceptions we might as well give up.
>>
>> Can I have a pint of what you're drinking? You are /entirely/ wrong. The
>> graphical quality, the speed, and the sound quality are all /much/ better
>> on a modern console than they are (or can be) on a PC. Even the very
>> latest / fastest / highest specification PC "running" Windows can't compete
>> with a £150 console.
>>
>
> Sorry, but from experience I'd have to say you're being quite wrong
> also. I've got several PC conversions of console games which look
> better than their console counterparts, and run and sound equally as
> good if not better.

He is quite wrong.

Consoles are *excellent* at getting good quality games on. They ar
stable, the games are normally bug free and the large market appeals to
games writers.

However, even a cursory glance at PC HW shos what the latest and
greatest can do:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=9

These complaints in an earlier part of the thread about some games being
hamstrung because they had to be shoe horned into a console too are true
for a reason. Not enough power to handle complicated texturing and not
enough memory for large play areas.

>
> To compare a current game, Bioshock, having played the demo of both PC
> and 360 versions, the PC version I had looks noticeably better than
> the 360 version (which was still quite stunning). It didn't run as
> smoothly, but then my system isn't that great and I know that the
> latest / fastest/ highest spec systems (actually, not quite even
> latest and greatest, just a little better than mine) can run it
> perfectly.
>
> The gap /is/ now closer than it's ever been, but given a console has
> (fairly) static hardware then the PC world can always leap ahead -
> obviously often at a hefty cost. Also, the cheapest console I presume
> you're trying to compare against is actually £190 at the moment.

--
Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of
filename completion.
-- Discussion on file completion vs. the Mac Finder

NoStop

jellybean stonerfish wrote:

<snip>

>
> Wow, it sure is. I have a brother too.

Well maybe you can talk to him and he can give you some tips on how to snip
down your replies?

Cheers.

--
Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
-- My Wife

Alias

jellybean stonerfish wrote:

>>
>>> I have a brother in law who was born and raised near Madrid. He met my
>>> sister while she was over there for grad school.
>>>
>>> He is now imprisoned in Eastern Washington State with his wife and two
>>> children. LOL
>>>
>>> Ryan
>> I have a brother named Ryan who lives near Seattle.
>>
>> Heh, small world.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Wow, it sure is. I have a brother too.

And his name is Ryan and lives in Seattle?

Alias

andrew

On 2007-11-28, Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Spanjaard illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:02:04 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

[...]

>>> Now I'm wondering how many Linux users are also martial artists. There
>>> are four in my family.
>>
>> Nusantara here, which is based on pencak silat.
>
> Tai Chi here.

Yoga here, although I have never tried it in combat :-)

Andrew

--
Now I can praise him, now that I can stand by to mourn
and speak before this web that killed my father; yet
I grieve for the thing done, the death, and all our race.
I have won; but my victory is soiled, and has no pride.

Edward A. Falk

In article <tTF1j.29165$cD.7607@pd7urf2no>, NoStop <nospam@nspam.com> wrote:
>>
>Where does it display this message? If within the GUI environment, then you
>can fix the prob by editing xorg.conf and inputting the hsync and vsync
>values for your monitor. A google will tell you how this needs to be done
>in xorg.conf.

Sounds like it's being displayed by the monitor itself. To fix it, he'll
probably have to boot into text mode and edit config files.

(Aside: this is the thing I really, really hate about Xfree86.
Those monitor config files are insanely difficult to edit. In a previous
life, I was the guy at Sun who made this stuff work, and believe me, it doesn't
need to be nearly as complicated as xf86 has managed to make it. If the video
driver can read the EDID data for the monitor, everything it needs to know
is contained therein. If not, there are only nine parameters that need to be
specified, and in most cases, you can guess correctly just knowing the
resolution, the refresh rate, and whether it's a CRT or LCD.)

(It's embarassing that here in the 21st century xf86 still doesn't get it
when Mac, Solaris, and Windows have had it working right for a decade.)

--
-Ed Falk, falk@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

NoStop

Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article <tTF1j.29165$cD.7607@pd7urf2no>, NoStop <nospam@nspam.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>Where does it display this message? If within the GUI environment, then
>>you can fix the prob by editing xorg.conf and inputting the hsync and
>>vsync values for your monitor. A google will tell you how this needs to be
>>done in xorg.conf.
>
> Sounds like it's being displayed by the monitor itself. To fix it, he'll
> probably have to boot into text mode and edit config files.
>
Of course it's being displayed by the monitor. That wasn't my question. I
wanted to know what Ubuntu was trying to do when the monitor dispayes the
out of range error message.

Cheers.

--
Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
-- My Wife