🚀 go-pugleaf

Badman wrote:
> 
> I think Intel/Cirix/AMD/others should just stop making chips so games >can
> get good on where they are...

Nice trying to put the brakes on the wheels of capitalism there.  Game
developers constantly have to push the envelope of machine capacity so
that they don't look like "last year's games" ...  Besides, game
development cycles are about to be crushed by the silicon development
cycle. 
All that cheap RAM you have is a by-product of the advances made between
the time you buy your computer and when you upgrade it.  Games are
taking a year or two to make now.  Moore's Law dictated that computers
get twice as big, twice as fast (and cheaper) in 18 months. {Make that 9
months now, since they figured out how to get two bits on one
transistor...}  So, if a certain game manufacturer developed for today's
machine, they wouldn't have written Quake, it would have been Doom with
16-bit color. 
Pentiums do not have the market penetration that you might think. (~10%
last time I checked) All the flashy PII commercials are because they are
trying to _get_ people to the pentium level in the first place...

> I predict once 50% or more of the market
> realizes Intel's "advances" are only for its own coporate money >grabbing
> tactics, they'll turn away, possibly finally making the major chip >makers
> get a "universally upgradable" platform off the ground, i.e. Panda >Project
> for the mainstream....

Yeah, but _everybody_ knows that Bill Gates is out to make money, and
that knowledge hasn't changed the marketplace.  He's the richest MF in
the computer biz right now _because_ he's a smart businessman and knows
how to rake it in.  How can you blame Intel for trying to control the
market?

Business does what is good for business, plain and simple.

Thrak