>>> Unless you count adventure games, of course.
>>I don't, as it happens. Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle did not
>>make the PC a viable *** option in 1991.
> You are grazy. Sierra, Dynamix and LucasArts adventure games of the
> time were true gems.
cheers
John
I remember a friend of mine had a PC and a King's Quest game or two; I
really wanted one of those machines :) Of course, the machines were
ludicrously expensive at the time (or maybe I just remember it as such),
so I never did get one.
I didn't start it :p
In 1995, I had an Amiga 1200, a SNES, and an Atari Lynx (all for a combined
price of significantly less than a contemporary PC, I might add). There
was still nothing on the PC that made me want to spend the outrageous
amount of money to buy one.
Are you saying the PC version of Wing Commander wasn't a scabby sprite
based pile of crap? I know the amiga version was :D Red Baron had analogue
stick support. Still, there were hundreds more games (of good quality) on
the consoles, and alternative computer platforms, than the PC. In an era
when cross platform development was rife, the PC was truly left out in the
cold. I don't know anyone today who'd use the Wing Commander series as an
arguemt for how PC games are *good* ;)
I beg to differ. Much more playable on the Amiga- I've played both
versions. Likewise Frontier Elite 2.
I'm saying people would have to be crazy to buy a PC in those days, solely
on the basis of the *** software. Costs were astronomical. Besides,
some other nonce started this whole thing saying nothing can ever compare
to a PC for ***. Surely if I can buy, eg, three *** platforms
combined for the same cost as a PC, then in terms of ***** potential, I
can justifiably compare all three against it. You're forgetting how
outrageously expensive "IBM compaitble" was in those days. I bought my own
first PC in may 1998 when the cyrix 200 systems were dropping under 500.
If you want to commant on what 500 will buy you today, I'll say one
cracking PC for games, as long as you stick to the pre-directx8. but 500
would buy you, an XBox, a PS2 and a GB advance- if games are your only
interest, surely it's a viable proposition to leave the beige box aside?
PCs couldn't do parralax, or hardware sprites :p
The SNES version was spot on, for me. SNES= 50 from Dixons, including
Aladdin (cheesy game) SF2- 15 from the games shop. even if I could beat
the software price for the PC (by pirating for example) I couldn't buy a PC
that would do streetfighter2 as well as a SNES. 50 was well worth it.
especially when you could buy absolute classics like Secret of Mana. Now,
of course, I play Secret of Mana on my SNES emulator on my PC- what goes
around comes around :D
Yes, I missed the boom, me and everybody else in my town. I know because
when I got my amiga in 1992, and my housemate at the time with his 486sx25
could not find a decent game to play on his pc, which cost a lot more (he'd
bought it to program pascal allegedly), and those of us with 400 or less
computers, were rolling in quality games. It was accountants buying
"leisure software" for the kids to play with at the weekend on the PC. I
don't know anyone on my CompSci degree who'd bought a PC for the games
potential.
It wasn't viable, it cost too much. Unless "daddy" bought one for the
office, most people could not afford to even sit in front of a PC about 10
years ago. Unless you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and
probably had a BBC micro before it :D
I don't mind PCs at all, I wonder what else I would have spent the thick
end of a grand on (1.4athlon, 19inch monitor, gf2 graphics, steering wheel
and pedals) having a blast with GTA3 on the PC right now- sod the PS2.
XBox and PS2 are not viable for me, because I have a piece of electronics
that can equal them, today, in games. If I had to start from scratch, I
couldn't justify spending 1000 on just games. This PC has "evolved" still
has the original floppy drive from that cyrix 200 in it- a true "woodsman's
axe".
There's nothing like Tekken 3 on my PC though, unless I fire up EPSXE...
My argument is, PCs were not a viable option for purely playing games on
for the vast majority of people, both in terms of the cost of the
equipment, and the variety and quality of games available, say ten years
ago.
cheers
John
>> You are grazy. Sierra, Dynamix and LucasArts adventure games of
>> the time were true gems.
> but without the added advantage of lotus-123, you wouldn't buy a
> PC to play them, would you? I mean, seriously. Monkey Island 1 &
> 2 were certainly available on other computer platforms, if not
> consoles.
Rikard
> >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari
> >> >> 400/800?
> >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s).
> >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the
> >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"
> > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari".
> Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that.
And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another matter, but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;) But, of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console games even in the pre-3D era, so...
Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point.
Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even ***ing do bilinear texture filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that!
See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in terms of versatility and cost-effectiveness.
For kiddie gamers and immature ***s, perhaps. For REAL gamers, PCs are the only way to go. :)
Among many other unique games unavailable on consoles, yes. :)
Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entire time, sport. "Open your ***ing [eyes], jackass!"
Eep is relatively useless.
>> Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :)
> Eep is relatively useless.
--
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
> >I don't know anyone today who'd use the Wing Commander series as an
> >arguemt for how PC games are *good* ;)
> My you are silly. You know, I wouldn't use any 1990 game on any
> platform as an example _today_ about how good the game is. SF2 on SNES
> looks crappy nowadays.
It did when you took into account the SNES's blending abilities. At the
time of its release, Final Fantasy 6 would not have been doable on a PC,
even ignoring the fact you'd need either a TV-out card or some serious
trickery to make the same set of pixels look as good on the PC.
Uh, no. It was the worlds that those games had over the SNES, not their
inhabitants.
--
I'm supposed to put a quote here?
> > Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in news:3CF9879D.9B04AA61@tnlc.com:
> > > JM wrote:
> > >> Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in news:3CF921F3.DB5F4E54@tnlc.com:
> > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari
> > >> >> 400/800?
> > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s).
> > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the
> > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"
> > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari".
> > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that.
> Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low
self-esteem boy.
> > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC
> > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then
> > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC.
> > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs
> > consoles and amigas pre 3d era.
> And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID
You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for gaming
than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play games using
pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them!
Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement without a
proper proof.
> > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker>
> > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It
barely
> > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't be
done
> > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one,
> > but it's no thief).
> Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point.
> > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps,
> > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead
> > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the
> > > dust for YEARS.
> > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed.
> > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid
> > Righteous (voodoo1).
> Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear texture
> See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in terms
There are points to be made for PCs. Heck, I play a lot more on my PC, and I
love using it. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here.
> > Of course I forget the cost of my TV, I didn't buy it to play games on,
> > that's just an added bonus. You cannot buy a new PC today for the same
> > money as a PS2 or XBox that will play equivalent games to the same
standard
> > (eg GTA3). As I said, even though you have a talent for ignoring the
facts
> > laid before you, I'll repeat. My PC is a much better piece of equipment
> > than any current console, because I use it for more than games. I also
> > accept that it cost me a hell of a lot more money than an XBox. If I
> > purely wanted to play games, and had no other consideration, a 200
console
> > is a much better proposition than a 500 PC.
> For kiddie gamers and immature adults, perhaps. For REAL gamers, PCs are
> Among many other unique games unavailable on consoles, yes. :)
Oh, and BTW, the same can be said for text-only adventures! (are we drooling
already?)
> Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entire
All the best,
ph7
p.s. What does REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS have to do with this discussion?
--
Don't mind your make-up,
Make your mind up!
(Frank Zappa)
> > > Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in news:3CF9879D.9B04AA61@tnlc.com:
> > > > JM wrote:
> > > >> Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in news:3CF921F3.DB5F4E54@tnlc.com:
> > > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari
> > > >> >> 400/800?
> > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore 64s).
> > > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in the
> > > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"
> > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari".
> > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that.
> > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low
> self-esteem boy.
> One may argue that giving the correct answer, but not to the question posed
> is absolutely wrong in itself.
> The statement you made was absolutely correct in itself, but meaningless to
> the question.
> Obviously, JM knew pretty much about Atari and Commodore.
> Or maybe, to use your view of things: "Commodore" is relatively "Atari", but
> not absolutely...
> ;-)
> > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the PC
> > > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before then
> > > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC.
> > > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance vs
> > > consoles and amigas pre 3d era.
> > And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC DID
> stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another matter,
> but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;) But,
> of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console games
> even in the pre-3D era, so...
> Your first statement means nothing, unless you can provide some evidence
> that *gaming* PCs were more popular than Amigas!
> You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for gaming
> than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play games using
> pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them!
> Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement without a
> proper proof.
> > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. <snicker>
> > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It barely
> > > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't be done
> > > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for one,
> > > but it's no thief).
> > Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point.
> If Thief hasn't sold among "REAL" players, why should it sell with the
> "kiddies"?
> What point ARE you making? Present a game which succeeded with PC gamers and
> failed with console gamers to illustrate your point.
> > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps,
> > > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the lead
> > > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in the
> > > > dust for YEARS.
> > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill informed.
> > > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid
> > > Righteous (voodoo1).
> > Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear texture
> filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that!
> Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared with the
> PSX?
> > See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in terms
> of versatility and cost-effectiveness.
> Please elaborate! Cost-effectiveness in terms of what, exactly? You're
> willing to pay a lot of money in order to get the newest games running on
> your system. That doesn't sound like a cost-effective decision to me...
> Buying an older computer with low-end hardware and older software versions
> will get you those "Office"-like applications running smoothly. It will also
> leave you with enough cash to buy a console and play games. That sounds more
> cost-effective to me, since you wouldn't have to upgrade neither to enjoy
> the best of both worlds.
> I bought a used Dreamcast for 50$. A new one costs about 80$. Please explain
> (even briefly) why a PC is more cost-effective.
> There are points to be made for PCs. Heck, I play a lot more on my PC, and I
> love using it. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree, here.
> > Facts? I've been slamming them into your arrogant little face the entire
> time, sport. "Open your fucking [eyes], jackass!"
> Is that a movie quote?
Remember this when Eep claims he never attacks first. Also remember,
arguing with Eep is like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the
pig likes it.
--
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people
in large groups." -Despair.com
>I bought a *** PC in 1991 or so, so your experience is not of
>course the only "right one". Amiga as a serious *** or computing
>platform was dead long before 1995. All it was getting at that point
>was poor PC ports, even if that.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
> > "Eep2" <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CFBF8DD.2BD9249D@tnlc.com...
> > > JM wrote:
> > > > Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in news:3CF9879D.9B04AA61@tnlc.com:
> > > > > JM wrote:
> > > > >> Eep2 <eepNOS...@tnlc.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> Wasnt the Amiga designed by the same people who did the Atari
> > > > >> >> 400/800?
> > > > >> > No, Atari makes Atari; Commodore made Amigas (and Commodore
64s).
> > > > >> Incorrect. elements of the original atari team were involved in
the
> > > > >> development of the amiga. "same people" not "same company"
> > > > > <shrug> "Commodore" isn't "Atari".
> > > > Shrug nothing, you were wrong, simple as that.
> > > Relatively wrong...and relatively right. :) <shrug> Get over it, low
> > self-esteem boy.
> > One may argue that giving the correct answer, but not to the question
posed
> > is absolutely wrong in itself.
> > The statement you made was absolutely correct in itself, but meaningless
to
> > the question.
> > Obviously, JM knew pretty much about Atari and Commodore.
> > Or maybe, to use your view of things: "Commodore" is relatively "Atari",
but
> > not absolutely...
> > ;-)
> <shrug> It's all relative.
> > > > Yes, I've heard of Wolf3d, but Wolf3d was not the catalyst for the
PC
> > > > gaming revolution, Doom was. That is the fact of the matter. Before
then
> > > > (and still today) 2d games were, in their entirety, shite on the PC.
> > > > Christ, the PC didn't even have hardware sprites, it stood no chance
vs
> > > > consoles and amigas pre 3d era.
> > > And yet the PC was FAR more popular than the Amiga. Obviously the PC
DID
> > stand a chance (winning, even) vs. the Amiga. Consoles are another
matter,
> > but since 3D came onto the scene, PCs have kicked their asses too. ;)
But,
> > of course, PC games were always much more revolutionary than console
games
> > even in the pre-3D era, so...
> > Your first statement means nothing, unless you can provide some evidence
> > that *gaming* PCs were more popular than Amigas!
> > You can, by the same token, prove that pen and paper are better for
gaming
> > than PCs, since they are more popular. Naturally, you can play games
using
> > pen and paper, but that's hardly the main use for them!
> > Note: I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're making a statement without
a
> > proper proof.
> Uh, you want evidence/proof? YOU hunt down the sales figures. Me, I KNOW
I never made that statement. The burden of proof is on your shoulders... You
claim to know your logic fairly well, but you should know that anecdotal
stories do not serve as evidence. That is, if you want to be taken
seriously... I'm sure even people who actually agree with you, that the PC
is better for gaming, cannot rely on your personal stories as any "proof"
for its validity.
> > > > >> I got my first ZX Spectrum in 1981, since then, I've had three
more
> > > > >> speccy's, a Commodore 64, a SNES (super famicom), playstation
(PSX),
> > > > >> Atari Lynx, an Amiga 1200, and currently a PC. There is nothing
in
> > > > >> PC games that isn't already in "console" games.
> > > > > Where is Thief for consoles? Oh, right, it doesn't exist.
<snicker>
> > > > Thief is a great game. Why should it be available for consoles? It
barely
> > > > sold any copies on the PC. There's nothing in Thief that couldn't
be done
> > > > in a console, and there are console stealth based games (Tenchu for
one,
> > > > but it's no thief).
> > > Indeed...it IS no Thief--and that's my point.
> > If Thief hasn't sold among "REAL" players, why should it sell with the
> > "kiddies"?
> > What point ARE you making? Present a game which succeeded with PC gamers
and
> > failed with console gamers to illustrate your point.
> Uh, are you SERIOUSLY asking this question? Civilization, MechWarrior 2,
> No, you're making empty observations.
> > > > > Silly JM, Cyrix crap isn't better than ANYTHING (except, perhaps,
> > > > > other Cyrix crap). Regardless, like I said, the consoles have the
lead
> > > > > for a SHORT while before the PC overtakes them and leaves them in
the
> > > > > dust for YEARS.
> > > > OK, now we've established that you're ingorant as well as ill
informed.
> > > > Fact is the best 3d card out when I got my first PC was the Orchid
> > > > Righteous (voodoo1).
> > > Uh, so what? That's you. The PSX can't even fucking do bilinear
texture
> > filtering! Even 1st-generation PC 3D accelerators could do that!
> > Please elaborate. When were those cards available when compared with the
> > PSX?
> Around the same time. Pick when the Voodoo came out and do the math.
> Perhaps for a month or so, as usual.
> > At any rate, what does bilinear texture filtering have to do with
anything?
> Everything, since it perfectly illustrates why PC hardware at the time was
> > It might make the game look better, sure. What about the frame rate?
> Hardware-accelerated bilinear texture filtering is faster that software
non-filtering.
> <shrug> I had a GF 256 and its performance is practically the same as a
> Who cares about being stuck with the same hardware for 3 years while PCs
You're making a logical fallacy here. In the mean time, the PC hardware
changes as well. This means you can't be stuck with the same hardware for 3
years, otherwise the PCs will be "leaps and bounds in the meantime" for your
PC, as well !
Let me see if I understand correctly. Since you make of console gamers "kids
and immature adults", and PC gamers as "mature adults", would you say that
gamers who have both are, on average, teens (the average of both), or old
folks (the sum of both)?
:)
> > > See standard default PC vs console debate. PCs blow away consoles in
terms
> > of versatility and cost-effectiveness.
> > Please elaborate! Cost-effectiveness in terms of what, exactly? You're
> > willing to pay a lot of money in order to get the newest games running
on
> > your system. That doesn't sound like a cost-effective decision to me...
> > Buying an older computer with low-end hardware and older software
versions
> > will get you those "Office"-like applications running smoothly. It will
also
> > leave you with enough cash to buy a console and play games. That sounds
more
> > cost-effective to me, since you wouldn't have to upgrade neither to
enjoy
> > the best of both worlds.
> > I bought a used Dreamcast for 50$. A new one costs about 80$. Please
explain
read more »
The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple 4Mb
cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP
standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you
might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really
weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly:
Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals to drink)
which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe which pumps
more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the
buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, so when
the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes and drinks
the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to
pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keep sucking
all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other
hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephant will
take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the water fast
enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizer can
keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have a GeForce
9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved
dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town A per
minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road between them is
a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is using its
full potential.
Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this
properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when you can
just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Why spend
all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when you can
just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your time making
a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest power plant
when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get the same
top speed?
Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) come back
at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, but the
PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other, better
alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay?
Anyway, my arguments aren't flawed for the simple fact that PC versions of consoles games (at least PS2 anyway) are better: faster and visually/graphically. Just look at Grand Theft Auto 3 for an example.
Oh and the PS2 bus is only 128-bit, not 2560-bit (odd amount anyway), according to http://www.racesimcentral.net/(which is a good explanation of the differnences between the PS2 and Xbox. Besides FSB (frontside bus) speeds are up to, what, 533MHz now? That's plenty fast to easily compete with the PS2.
While the PS2 MAY have a lot of potential to beat PCs and the Xbox, until developers truly take advantage of it and understand HOW to harness that potential, the PS2 will be a lame duck while the "brute force" mentality of PCs (but not the Xbox since it's hardware is locked) will advance beyond what the PS2 can do.
Me, I'm sticking with hardware I have control over and can upgrade at will whenever I want. I am in COMPLETE control of my *** experience; consolers are not.
> The PS2 graphics chip has a huge bus (2,560 bits) running to a simple 4Mb
> cache. The PC has a tiny bus (which was 'upgraded' minimally to the AGP
> standard), running to 64Mb/128Mb Video RAM. What is the difference, you
> might ask. Well, here is an analogy I read somewhere which sounds really
> weird, but illustrates the principle perfectly:
> Imagine you have 2 buckets of water (barrels of water for animals to drink)
> which are serving elephants. To keep these full, you have a pipe which pumps
> more water into the buckets. The pipes are the graphics buses, and the
> buckets are video memory. The PS2 has a huge pipe and a tiny bucket, so when
> the elephant (which symbolises the output to the screen) comes and drinks
> the water, it sucks it up really quickly - but the pipe is big enough to
> pump more water than the elephant drinks, so the elephant can keep sucking
> all year and the bucket will never run dry of water (data). On the other
> hand, the PC has a huge bucket and a tiny pipe, so while the elephant will
> take a while to empty the bucket, the pipe cannot replenish the water fast
> enough so eventually it will run dry. Thus, the PS2 graphic synthesizer can
> keep the throughput much higher than the PC. Yes, even if you have a GeForce
> 9 with 72 Gigs of Video Memory. At least until buses are improved
> dramatically on the PC. It doesn't matter how many cars can leave town A per
> minute, or how many can enter town B per minute, if the road between them is
> a single-carriageway, but if it is a six-lane motorway then it is using its
> full potential.
> Of course, it is harder to program the PS2 to take advantage of this
> properly, but then why spend your time making decent, fast code when you can
> just throw some shit code at a PC and bump up the minimum specs? Why spend
> all that time and effort making a properly integrated machine when you can
> just bump up the clock speeds and brute force it? Why spend your time making
> a lean, perfectly balanced and fast Lotus Elise with a modest power plant
> when you can stick a Formula 1 engine in a knackered Volvo and get the same
> top speed?
> Why bother arguing the point when you will all (especially Eep2) come back
> at me with random shit like 'I don't know anything about hardware, but the
> PC is better coz I say so' and refuse to accept there are other, better
> alternatives out there at a cheaper monetary outlay?
