rec.autos.simulators

And you can say with a straight face you trust anything Pabst says in the
earlier post?  There is so much blatant misinformation on that site it's
laughable.

And, you're going on again about "non-AGP2x compliant, etc.".  Who the hell
cares?  Last I checked, the Voodoo3 does just fine with texture-management
without using the AGP method, and when everyone was hyping AGP texturing
last year all the AGP cards were getting smoked by SLI running on a bus half
the speed.  I don't care HOW a card does the job, just HOW WELL.

The ONLY issue with the V3 is 32-bit color, and I've yet to see a game that
requires that.  I've seen Q3A test on mine, and it looks pretty good.  I've
seen it on a TNT in 32-bit color, and it looked somewhat better.  Enough for
me to run out and drop $250 on a TNT2?  Not hardly.  Especially since many
of the effects in Q3A in 32-bit still didn't look as good as some I've seen
in Unreal in "lowly" 16-bit.  Again, it's not HOW you do it, it's HOW WELL.

The guy who wants all the TV and radio and stuff will think he's getting a
great deal, as "TV and Radio Tuners" mean a helluva lot more to him than AGP
4X.  For the guy who doesn't need that, the $179 Voodoo3 3000 looks more
attractive than a $249 TNT2, again, as none of the little buzzwords mean
much to him.  The Voodoo3's are cheaper than the competition, and offer
almost the same real-world.  Joe Consumer is just not going to notice the
difference in 32-bit and 16-bit, it's all gonna look 10 times better than
his Playstation did, and he won't have any basis for the speed comparisons
either - especially since on his system that is most likely NOT a PIII-500
the V3 is usually going to be FASTER.  Sorry, I've been in the stores and
seen people not look twice at the TNT2's due to the sticker shock, and get a
V3.  I doubt seriously they returned it because they found it didn't support
AGP4x or something like that.

Face it, nobody is going to go far wrong with any of these cards, and 3dfx
is selling them under what they could so is going to get a lot of the price
is everything crowd.  I guarantee if Diamond and Creative had been selling
Voodoo3's with a month lead time on the TNT2's, they would've jacked the
price up for a while to milk the early adopter market, then dropped them a
bit at the TNT2 launch, and that was the crux of the orignal argument.

--
Ken's Sig 3.0

"Who is the more foolish?  The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan
Kenobi

Go #43 and #44!

volksy (at) geocities (dot) com
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com

It's a forgone conclusion that PC's outsell Mac's, and that Wintel
marketshare is upwards of 90%.

An interesting question that is never asked, though, (maybe because it
can't be answered) is how many legacy units of each platform are still
in use?

My own personal experience is that I see _far_ more old Mac's in use
than PC's, when only taking into consideration machines 5 years old or
older.  People seem much more willing to throw away an old PC, or donate
it away.

-Larry

-Larry

With few / no competing chipsets, we paid $300 for a new 3dfx product.  As
newer products that competed with them came out, the prices came down.
Since there is good competition in today's market, we paid $179 tops for the
fastest 3dfx product out.  If you think a Voodoo3 3000 from someone other
than 3dfx would've been significantly cheaper, I think you're greatly
mistaken - and looking at the minor price differences from the competing
TNT2 products should prove that to you - and if you look back at the
competing V1, V2, Banshee and Rush products and the minor price differences
then you should see it also.  Based on how they've always done, I'd be
shocked to not see Diamond price a V3 3000 at $229 and then dropped it a bit
when the TNT2 came out.  3dfx had it at $179 from the start, and I fail to
see how anyone would've made it for much, or any, less than that.

When a V2 was $300 from Creative or Diamond, sure there was a lot of room
for someone to undercut them, as there was a huge profit margin there.
Especially considering that 3dfx did all the design work for them, as most
everyone just copied the reference design, and packed it in a box.   With
$200 and under cards, there isn't nearly the margin there so price
differences are going to be much smaller.  Watch the TNT2 prices, until the
next-gen 3dfx and nVidia cards come out, I bet you'll be shocked to see
there won't be much of a price drop on any of them, or much price
differential.

And it looks like the single-source Matrox G400, with more features and
speed than the TNT2's, isnt' going to be more than the top TNT2's, so there
is another knock on your argument.

If you don't like what 3dfx has, fine, but to say you won't buy one simply
because they won't let anyone compete in making the exact same card to save
you a whopping $10 (or charge you MORE for all you know) is basically
ludicrous.  With the pricing of their current product line vs. the
competition, 3dfx disproved this theory (which has been going around since
they bought STB) months ago.

--
Ken's Sig 3.0

"Who is the more foolish?  The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan
Kenobi

Go #43 and #44!

volksy (at) geocities (dot) com
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com

Are you asking if the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is higher with PC's
because because they have to be replaced more often?

Not really.  Businesses generally keep PC's quite a whiles.  The larger
the company, the longer a PC will stay in use.  Hand-Me-Downs :)

However, most reports I've seen (and it has been several years)
indicated a higher TCO for PC's (even though they are initially cheaper)
due to higher IS and maintenance costs.

I'm certain not here to debate this, so leave me alone people :)