Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GCW Zero: Another Linux Game Console Attempt

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [Knuckles]
    replied
    Well, I wish them the best of luck, but it seems a little out of time for 2013.

    Why not do basically an android phone minus the phone part, but adding a decent d-pad, and the other keys?
    Basically a modern version of the Tapwave Zodiac?

    The Tapwave Zodiac was an excellent idea, but a bit ahead of its time. I can't see why it wouldn't work with android, and there'd be lots of games out of the box!

    * - Fsck the zodiac came out in 2003!? I'm getting old

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    Thanks. Strange, I'd bet back in those days VGA referred to 320x240, wheres SVGA referred to 640x480.
    Now I read (Wikipedia) that the former is called QVGA while SVGA refers to a resolution of 800x600.
    IIRC VGA was 640x480 16 colour, PGC was 640x480 256 colour, and SVGA is usually 800x600. I think XGA was next at 1024x768.

    EDIT... changed original 640x400 for VGA to 640x480. The 320x200 res was for 256 colours, and it used 400 active lines in text mode, but I guess it always was 640x480 in graphics mode. Also corrected "PGA" to "PGC".
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-13-2013, 02:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chewi
    replied
    To be fair to the Pandora, it was a true grass roots effort and they had a bloody hard slog getting it out the door. It's a miracle it was even released at all. They weren't lucky enough to have Kickstarter in the beginning. It would probably be more popular if it weren't so expensive. I don't know what the Zero will retail at but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in the same ballpark.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redi44
    replied
    Meh.

    Not interested...

    Unless it will be able to run games like RedEclipse, UrbanTerror, Doom3, Quake IV etc...

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    It's intended for retro gaming, so the resolution isn't seen to be a major issue.
    Still, a 640x480 display would make way more sense to me and shouldn't be that expensive.
    There are plenty of mid-90s (retro) games which featured that resolution.
    Furthermore, upscaling from 320x240 is trivial and loss-free.

    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    One small correction though: VGA is 640x480
    Thanks. Strange, I'd bet back in those days VGA referred to 320x240, wheres SVGA referred to 640x480.
    Now I read (Wikipedia) that the former is called QVGA while SVGA refers to a resolution of 800x600.

    Leave a comment:


  • crazycheese
    replied
    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    (does anybody else remember Cirrus Logic graphics cards?)
    I hear you. Cirrus Logic, Trident, S3, 256-512kb VRAM, slow ISA, even screen refreshes were slow, 13h is all one could hope for.
    Remember installing PCI VGA one day(forgot which one) and getting [email protected] on 14" CRT in win 3.11. That was simply astonishing...

    Leave a comment:


  • archibald
    replied
    It's intended for retro gaming, so the resolution isn't seen to be a major issue.

    One small correction though: VGA is 640x480, so this is one quarter of that. I still remember playing the original Tomb Raider in 320x240 because my computer wasn't fast enough for high resolution mode (does anybody else remember Cirrus Logic graphics cards?)

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    That thing sounded great until I hit the display specs.
    VGA resolution, really? Do I miss something?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X