My computer has been officially been made a *****......

[bUlLeT_pRoOf]

thank you Crysis! Has anyone seen the specifications for Assassin's Creed yet? They are absurd.

 

[Static]

Rumor is Nasa computers can;t even handle Crysis without it sneezing now and again.

 

[bUlLeT_pRoOf]

I have my case fully left open, WITH 4 fans running at full speed, and it still overheats. Assassin's Creed is about 2-3 times more demanding though! I give it about a couple more years, before we have virtual reality games, with the way technology is booming.

 

[x42bn6]

I blame this: Moore's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My computer is quite useless for most purposes at the moment. It is still good for receiving porn ads on BattleForums, I guess, but there's other things it should be able to do.*

 

[Renzokuken]

My friends computer runs Crysis fine on high. He doesn't even have an 8800.

 

[x42bn6]

My computer crashes running Call of Duty 4. The demo. THE DEMO. THE DEMO.*

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I've built a computer that plays Crisis on high without any hiccups

 

[Ntrik_]

my computer crashes when i play sc nowadays

its really ****ed up (crashes when im tlakin to toomany ppl on msn too)

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I blame this: Moore's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My computer is quite useless for most purposes at the moment. It is still good for receiving porn ads on BattleForums, I guess, but there's other things it should be able to do.*

yeah but Moore's law states hardware gets better at an exponential rate, but clearly Software is slow to follow.

 

[x42bn6]

Software "power" cannot be measured, to be honest...*

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Rumor is Nasa computers can;t even handle Crysis without it sneezing now and again.

Columbia (supercomputer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

doubt ful

Software "power" cannot be measured, to be honest.

Not talking about Power. Talking about how hardware gets faster, software ends up bloated and slower. Only balanced out by the fact that our hardware is better, most new computers run new software just as fast if not slower than they did years ago and that isn't because the software is better, but because it is slower.

I know specifically that I have computers that take just as long if not longer to start up the OS than 10 years ago when I had windows 95. Hardware is just making the physical components smaller to fit more transistors. To program you either write everything yourself taking months longer, or you use existing libraries and frameworks that take up more space and take far longer to load at a cheaper cost.

 

[Metal Gear Flash]

i can run crysis on my laptop on medium (granted my laptops a monster) so i dont see why people cant run this on high with their home machines if they are relatively new, GOW looks equally great

 

[x42bn6]

Columbia (supercomputer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

doubt ful



Not talking about Power. Talking about how hardware gets faster, software ends up bloated and slower. Only balanced out by the fact that our hardware is better, most new computers run new software just as fast if not slower than they did years ago and that isn't because the software is better, but because it is slower.

I know specifically that I have computers that take just as long if not longer to start up the OS than 10 years ago when I had windows 95. Hardware is just making the physical components smaller to fit more transistors. To program you either write everything yourself taking months longer, or you use existing libraries and frameworks that take up more space and take far longer to load at a cheaper cost.

Ah, but software is getting as efficient as hardware at the same rate. There are twice as many control sequences being executed in a certain time frame by Moore's Law. It's just that nobody works directly with machine code. In order for software, from a human perspective, to follow Moore's Law, one would have to strip away everything one knows about a computer. One wouldn't even have programs, they'd slow the processor down.

Which is why software doesn't follow Moore's Law - only transistors and processor speed.*

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Ah, but software is getting as efficient as hardware at the same rate. There are twice as many control sequences being executed in a certain time frame by Moore's Law. It's just that nobody works directly with machine code. In order for software, from a human perspective, to follow Moore's Law, one would have to strip away everything one knows about a computer. One wouldn't even have programs, they'd slow the processor down.

Which is why software doesn't follow Moore's Law - only transistors and processor speed.*

When I say software is getting less efficient I don't mean on a per hardware basis. Because if you compare it, Software is completely Dependant on the hardware. I'm simply saying that software is following a trend of being far to bloated, and looking at the way it is created versus the way hardware is created, Software has become far more inefficient to lower cost of programmers than is needed. It isn't a bad thing, it is inconvenient but better hardware means it doesn't matter as much, but it could be far better.

 

[x42bn6]

When I say software is getting less efficient I don't mean on a per hardware basis. Because if you compare it, Software is completely Dependant on the hardware. I'm simply saying that software is following a trend of being far to bloated, and looking at the way it is created versus the way hardware is created, Software has become far more inefficient to lower cost of programmers than is needed. It isn't a bad thing, it is inconvenient but better hardware means it doesn't matter as much, but it could be far better.

The modularity of Windows means that kludges (ugly fixes) are occurring less and less in today's software, despite the fact nobody knows what the heck .NET Framework installation for Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime 7.0 Library for ComponentDLL means. It's only the perception of Windows that software is getting more and more bloated - to accomplish tasks more efficiently, one has to introduce more bloatedness at the expense of processor efficiency. I could accomplish much with a bare Linux console but at the expense of my own time writing my own scripts. In fact, I'd probably end up writing my own GUI, which is surprise, surprise! an introduction of "bloatware".

But as for programmers, it never matters. A good user-interface has always been part of the software development process, even if it was those DOS programmers wondering which colour out of 16 colours was best for a warning message. This is so that users can be more efficient.

As computers get faster and faster, the most important task is to minimise how slow a user responds to a computer rather than a computer worrying about how to distribute 1GB of stupidity for Windows Vista's interface.*

 

[concrete_sox]

Great thread guys, I agree.

 

[bUlLeT_pRoOf]

I don't understand what you guys are trying to say. The only reason new hardware is being made; is to match or atleast meet the requirements of the software. So, how can software be getting slower, if that is what people are building it off of. I understand, we have games witch are around 7-8 GB right now. But, graphic cards are designed for the sole purpose to meet the standards of the rapidly expanding and technologically advancing, game industry. Without new software being created, and need more powerful machines to run. We really could use the same processors they did 10 years ago.

 

[bUlLeT_pRoOf]

Oh wait, you guys are talking about how badly they are written. Blonde moment......

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Oh wait, you guys are talking about how badly they are written. Blonde moment......

naw, not written badly, just a huge reliance on high level programming, libraries and software frameworks mean the programming is easy, but there is more bloat that it is less efficient.

 

[concrete_sox]

Thank's for the info but next time use the edit button and don't double post. Thanks.