It's 2010, But A No-Go For GNOME's 10x10 Goal

[BlackStar]

They are at a similar resolution. I'm not going to compare apples to oranges to suit your argument, that's completely illogical.

Find me a 720p PC monitor. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

This is a console/TV-only resolution. PC games are typically run at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050, with 1024x768, 1440x900, 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 trailing far behind (source: Steam hardware survey). Only one of these resolutions comes close to the 720p baseline you like to quote - yes, you can build a cheap PC to game at such low resolutions, but the number of PC gamers that do so is vanishingly small (check the survey).

You argue that old PCs can be upgraded cheaply to play games, so there isn't any cost advantage in favor of consoles. I argue that few people upgrade such old machines to play games - they either buy new ones (cost disadvantage) or buy dedicated consoles. If you factor in continuous PC upgrades required to play the latest games (new GPU every 2-3 years), the cost disadvantage of PCs becomes even more obvious.

Pretty much anything with a Core 2 duo, i7 or a Turion II processor and a dedicated ATI or Nvidia card is capable of being a "desktop replacement" these days. Which covers almost anything above the "budget" range, basically.

Desktop replacement means 17+'' monitor to most people. Google the term and check the results.

Besides, you won't find high-end graphics and CPUs on anything smaller than 17''.

Sales Statistics:

"The third quarter of 2008 was the first time when notebook PC shipments exceeded desktops, with 38.6 million units versus 38.5 million units."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop#Sales .

Interesting. This directly contradicts a number of articles from 2005, including this CNet report: "PC milestone--notebooks outsell desktops".

I guess that the difference lies between worldwide vs US-only shipments.

@deanjo: I picked Apple precisely because of its marketing machine. No matter how much you dislike Apple (I certainly do), you have to admit they are trend-setters. If Apple is advertizing 7+ hours batteries, it means that the public wants or will soon want them (It doesn't even matter if it's false marketing). You can observe this trend in laptop reviews: anything less than 3 hours is now considered something between bad and borderline acceptable (but worse than a macbook), while two years ago 3 hours batteries were considered just fine.

[BlackStar]

@drag: as far as I know, jack uses the sample rate of the input device across the board. This eliminates quality drop between recording, editing and sending to disk / speakers. (Professional sound cards tend to have hardware mixers, so no need to resample manually).

Pulse doesn't use hardware mixing even if the hardware supports this (source). This means it will always resample all streams to a common samplerate (typically 44.1KHz or 48KHz, depending on the capabilities of the sound chip), which may cause a slight quality drop (usually not noticeable in typical PC speakers, assuming Pulse is correctly configured).

Again, it's the difference in priorities:
- Jack needs to route audio streams from input -> apps -> disk/speakers as fast and as accurately as possible. If this requires a faster CPU or dedicated sound hardware, so be it.
- Pulse needs to route audio streams from apps -> speakers with acceptable quality and as little user-intervention as possible (this means it has to work on all hardware, use as little CPU as possible, even if quality/latency takes a hit in the process).

[deanjo]

@deanjo: I picked Apple precisely because of its marketing machine. No matter how much you dislike Apple (I certainly do), you have to admit they are trend-setters. If Apple is advertizing 7+ hours batteries, it means that the public wants or will soon want them (It doesn't even matter if it's false marketing). You can observe this trend in laptop reviews: anything less than 3 hours is now considered between bad and borderline acceptable (but worse than a macbook), while two years ago 3 hours batteries were considered just fine.

I don't dislike apple (hell I wouldn't of worked for them for 5 years if that was the case). As I mentioned before in other threads, Apple does not make 'laptops' they are marketed as 'portables' (third party resellers may errantly refer to them as such though) meaning that you are expected to place them on a hard flat surface. When the Macbook Air came out for example people complained about the lack of i/o hookups on them. This was done by design as it is a solution to compliment their desktops. Apple by no means expects people to be running iMovie/FCP/etc on those machines. I know for a fact that a Apple household usually contains a desktop system. Portables get replaced on a more regular basis because their usefulness is also shorter lived. Desktops usually have a longer "use life" then portables. Portables get banged up, have a shorter lifespan, greater failure rate, and lower machine specs to begin with and as such are prone to upgrading to a new one more then your typical desktop. Heck, apple has even recently started marketing the mac mini as a file server solution for the home. The only real product that Apple markets as a replacement desktop system is the 15/17" Macbook Pros which are not by any means their best selling portables. A apple home is rarely a portable only home.

[Hoodlum]

Find me a 720p PC monitor. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

I guess you have never seen a 720p TV. 720p TVs tend to be 1366x768. The same resolution as most laptop lcds. Almost every laptop on dells site and almost every one on HPs site. The two largest manufacturers of laptops you'll find.

"When referring to televisions and other monitors intended for consumer entertainment use, WXGA is generally understood to refer to a resolution of 1366?768, with an aspect ratio of 16:9. In 2006 this was the most popular resolution for liquid crystal display televisions"
Source

This is a console/TV-only resolution.

Nope, look at almost any 720p TVs or modern laptops. 720p TVs upscale to 1366x768 in most cases. This is largely due to manufacturing reasons which I'm not particularly interested in educating you about.

You'll also find on the steam hardware survey you linked that 16:9 aspect ratios are massively increasing in popularity.

Only one of these resolutions comes close to the 720p baseline you like to quote - yes, you can build a cheap PC to game at such low resolutions, but the number of PC gamers that do so is vanishingly small (check the survey).

The fact they can is the point I am making. This is the freedom of the PC and why (along with other reasons I mentioned) It is not going anywhere like the media hype suggests.

You argue that old PCs can be upgraded cheaply to play games, so there isn't any cost advantage in favor of consoles. I argue that few people upgrade such old machines to play games - they either buy new ones (cost disadvantage) or buy dedicated consoles. If you factor in continuous PC upgrades required to play the latest games (new GPU every 2-3 years), the cost disadvantage of PCs becomes even more obvious.

If you factor in the added cost of console games (especially outside the US) that trend reverses pretty quickly. Add on xbox live if you're a xbox users and even more so. I already had a rebuttle to this in my previous posts.

Desktop replacement means 17+'' monitor to most people. Google the term and check the results.

Using that "old definition" I can only think of one that fits the criteria for weight and screen size. The 17" Alienware Dell sells. Ironically the 15" Alienware which i'm sure we could all agree exceeds the needed specifications for being a desktop replacement would not be classified as one (both too light and the screen is too small). So let's use "desktop replacement" as "desktop replacement" rather than some arbitrary definition of weight and screen size. That would be a very cheap way to try to avoid the point, you don't need to resort to that

I think you'll find the term "desktop replacement" to the average person will be "desktop replacement". This is common sense. If using the old definition of the term (over a certain weight, 17" screen etc) Apple no longer provides such machines.
Here's an example:
People actually working for Apple however willingly promote Macbook Pro's as a functioning desktop replacement (just walk into an apple store). All of the descriptions they use on their site for the line also point to this too. "The mobile computing powerhouse.", "The ultimate mobile studio." etc.

Besides, you won't find high-end graphics and CPUs on anything smaller than 17''.

You don't need to. Most laptops tend to be 1366x768 resolution screens. The same as most 720p TVs which consoles use. You only need a low end card to match those.

Interesting. This directly contradicts a number of articles from 2005, including this CNet report: "PC milestone--notebooks outsell desktops".

I guess that the difference lies between worldwide vs US-only shipments.

Fair enough, I guess so. Apple is huge in the US too. I almost never see Apple laptops over here. Must be a regional thing.

[movieman]

Well, let me slice it this way: an initial investment for a decent gaming PC is in the range of $750-$1000. This is equal to the cost of a console plus 10 to 15 games.

I bought 10-15 PC games over Christmas; total cost was about $100. Obviously they're older games which were on sale or in the bargain bin, but when I've looked at prices of older console games, I've never seen them drop anywhere near that low. Since I gave up on buying PC games on release years ago -- since most of them are now just buggy and inefficient console ports and many don't even get patched -- that's another good reason for not buying a console.

Personally I've never understood why Microsoft got into consoles in the first place; the only reason I need a Windows PC is for games, and if Microsoft manage to kill PC gaming then I can stick to Linux and Solaris in future.

[BlackStar]

@Hoodlum: PC games run on PC monitors, not TVs. The Steam hardware survey confirms this - just look at how few people use Steam on typical TV resolutions.

Apple certainly provides 17'' Macbook Pros, which have more powerful components and better screen resolutions than their smaller counterparts. I know a couple of people who bought such machines recently and when I asked them why they specifically mentioned they wanted them as "desktop replacements".

Finally, most laptops are still 1280x800 (16:10). This ugly 1366x768 (16:9) trend is about one year old and is especially prevalent on netbooks (16:9 laptops used to be very uncommon before 2009).

@deanjo: it doesn't matter what Apple calls them, these machines look like laptops and work like laptops. If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, what animal is it?

Most laptops work best on flat, hard surfaces. My D830 (Dell), 6530b (HP) and my older Fujitsu all mention this explicitly and warn against laying the machine on your lap for extended periods of time, so Apple is far from unique in that regard. This doesn't mean that these machines aren't laptops.

[deanjo]

@deanjo: it doesn't matter what Apple calls them, these machines look like laptops and work like laptops. If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, what animal is it?

They are most definitely not laptops. Just because a car has a trailer hitch it doesn't mean it's meant for pulling out tree stumps or just because you can pound a screw into the wall with a hammer it they are not designed for that. They are designed for placement on flat surface with it's thermal characteristics in such a setting. Just like the manual is designed for reading proper use. You can use a 1.8" hard drive for raid array as well, but don't expect it to last as they were not meant for it.

[Hoodlum]

@Hoodlum: PC games run on PC monitors, not TVs.

Never said otherwise, cheap attempt at implying I did.

The Steam hardware survey confirms this - just look at how few people use Steam on typical TV resolutions.

And at laptop resolutions. Cheap leaving that bit out, don't degrade yourself

Apple certainly provides 17'' Macbook Pros, which have more powerful components and better screen resolutions than their smaller counterparts. I know a couple of people who bought such machines recently and when I asked them why they specifically mentioned they wanted them as "desktop replacements".

That's nice. I knew someone called Wallace who went to the moon with his friend Gromit, it was made of cheese, apparently. (For the uninitiated i'm pointing out how insubstantial what he's saying is).

Finally, most laptops are still 1280x800 (16:10).

And almost no one uses 1280x800 according to the steam hardware survey. Can't be a market that matters much for gaming then. This further backs up my earlier assertion that the majority are desktops which you attempted to dispute.

This ugly 1366x768 (16:9) trend is about one year old and is especially prevalent on netbooks

Would you be one of those people that said "I do dislike this trend toward colour, people look so awfully guady on a colour screen."? Cheer up

Btw: A good 90% of the Dell / HP laptops on their site are using 16:9 which isn't true of netbooks (example: only one of the HP ones is, the biggest manufacturer in the world.) Far from 90%+ of the netbooks on their site, like with laptops (yes, I checked ).

(16:9 laptops used to be very uncommon before 2009).

Video games were uncommon before computers, too. (Pointing out the irrelvence of his comment, we're not talking about the past)

If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, what animal is it?

Which is why dell has the 15" Alienware down as a desktop replacement.

Because it is one. Desktop replacement = desktop replacement. So you are seriously trying to claim Alienware laptops are not desktop replacements? Please get a grip of reality.

So with all these companies like Dell and Apple lying about what a desktop replacement is you could sue them for false advertising, right? Oh yeah...desktop replacement means desktop replacement to logical entities.

A great man once said You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. This applies to you, here.

Most laptops work best on flat, hard surfaces. My D830 (Dell), 6530b (HP) and my older Fujitsu all mention this explicitly and warn against laying the machine on your lap for extended periods of time, so Apple is far from unique in that regard.

"If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, what animal is it?" - your own words, quite apt here.

So basically I've systematically proved everything you have said to be false. I'm bored of your trolling now, no challenge. Enjoy trolling the rest of the thread

[D0pamine]

@Everyone
Did mr. Torvalds give up KDE for GNOME when KDE 4 was released? As ever improvements bring bugs.

As for console games - is nexuiz available on any console? Or even alien arena? if so lets see who has the best equipment me and my 5 year old 'PC' with razer mouse or someone with a ps3 and a six-axis controller. I bet it'll be less than 5 mins before he/she says i'm cheating and reaches for the mw2 disc.

EDIT: Oh yeh its GNU/Linux

[Kano]

@BlackStar

As 720p is 1280x720 no scaling is needed on a 1280x1024 display, just 304 black lines extra Also there are many laptops out there with 1280x800 or 1280x768 res, so that's more common than you might think.