Computers: The Technical Thread [!OT]

[mrwiseman]

This thread has been created for discussing the technical tidbits of pretty much anything, especially, the console technical specs we've been discussing in other threads lately.

<font color="#101010" size="1">[ October 26, 2004 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Nevan ]</font>

[One Classy Bloke]

Erm... let's see... Technical... technical... OH! I know!

You mentioned that the new Sony handheld will use Universal Media Discs (Those are Mini Discs right?). I wonder if the battery will be able to last for more than a few hours with that feature. Thats the reason why the GBA is not really that advanced. Nintendo is thinking about the how long the batteries will last. Thats how they've made the GB do so well.

[mrwiseman]

Not exactly minidiscs, but they are small high-density optical discs.

As you said, battery lastability is the most important factor in a portable console; and I think Sony's will stand a chance. With time, things eat less and less power and batteries get better and better. A special lithium battery will help too, as it's much better than regular AA/AAA batteries and it's better quality (though you'll probably have to replace it every year because they get less and less effective with time, especially when you recharge when it's not fully emptied or stop a recharge).

The disc drive does eat more battery power than just a ROM, but I expect this will not be an issue with the advances in power-saving technology and the special battery. And if they have enough RAM, they may load eveything and turn the motor off during stages to save power.

The console WILL be bigger than a GBA, and it'll probably weight more, but it'll be worth it; after all, do you really keep your pocket console in your pockets?).

[Xellos]

I keep my GBA SP in my pocket all the time. it's the main reason I bought it, so it could fit.

And I read that the new handheld will just have all PSX games, nothign new :/

[mrwiseman]

If that is so, then it must be one of two:

1 - It's going to have a very similar architecture and direct conversions. In this case, the console will be a bit more powerful than I thought.

2 - They are going to remake the PSX games like they do for the GBA.

In any of the two cases, I think the best would be to have all-new games, but it's much better to have PSX games made portable rather than SNES. First of all, the PSX has thousands and thousands of games you probably don't even know anything about, so they'll be somewhat new for you. Second, new PSX games are being released even today, unlike with the SNES, and chances are that you haven't played many of them on emus. Third, it's much more spectacular to have PSX games, which use low-end real 3D graphics, converted to portable, rather than the typical SNES 2D games and a few simple 3D software rendered games. So I think even if this is true, the console will be interesting.

And given the current base of games available for the GBA, I think Sony won't have it too hard to make it more interesting than the GBA. All they need is:

1. A lot of games covering all genres (quite possible with the system, and quite easy and quick to do if they convert PSX games); the hardware itself is far more powerful and interesting.
2. Make sure that the battery lasts enough.
3. Offer an attractive price either in the console or the games. They could sell the console at a price below costs, and make money with games, or they could sell the console at a profitable price and make games much cheaper (this could be better if they are going to sell converted games, which is the problem of the GBA: it's already annoying enough that you have to pay a lot for a pocket 2D game when you can get superb, CD-based, long, full of artwork 3D games for the same price, and it's really pissing that it's mere SNES conversons what you pay for).

[mrwiseman]

And now a question: What would you prefer: CISC, RISC, CISCy RISC or RISCy CISC?

[melfice]

Risc can be faster under the same basis (clock speed, memory...) than a Cisc, though it is more complex to program, not obstant, all the machines you're using currently have a Risc-oriented (when it is not a Pure Risc) functionality, so, i'd say i prefer Risc over Cisc

Terminology... just if you don't know [img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img]
Risc: Reduced Instruction Set Chip.
Chips with very few instructions, and very elemental, all the instruction are executed [...] in 1 clock cicle
Cisc: Complex Instruciton Set Chip.
Chips that have implemented complex instructions that a Risc have to execute in multiple instructions, So, when a Cisc executes 1 instruction, a Risc may need 4 or 5. but the Cisc instructions need more than 1 cicle to execute.

new smileys! ^^ [img]cool.gif[/img]

[mrwiseman]

I'd go for CISCy RISC.

Pure CISC proved to be somewhat inefficient in some cases (while it's easier to program and it's just as good or better than RISC when you need use the powerful instructions to the limit). Original CISC processors like Intel's 386 evolved to the RISCy CISC processors we have now in our PCs (this includes the Xbox, of course), which internally run a fast RISC processor and offer some RISC-style functionality, but never cease to support the CISC architecture (in fact, the 64 bit SIMD extensions (MMX) and floating point SIMD extensions (SSE, 3DNow!, etc.) aren't but powerful CISC instructions).

Pure RISC proved to be somewhat dull and program code to be large. To provide better performance, one had to increase the clock speed or number of pipelines or processors dramatically. The original Power MAC processors were this. To make them more efficient, they implemented in hardware some higher-level instructions which would not compromise speed and architecture. Hence CISCy RISC processors were born. Now the Gx processors used in Macs have about as many instructions as Intel's, including high level ones. The processors in the real consoles (PlayStation 2, Dreamcast, GameCube) are like this.

Judging for what I saw, this last approach seems to be better and more cost-effective.

[Ryudo]

Hyper offtopic: The music of this thread shall be "Techno Base" from Sonic Advance 2

[mrwiseman]

My old computer monitor is screwed... gotta get a new one. I want a 17" monitor because 19" would be too much (my desk is not too deep and there's the wall so it can't be too long). I'm looking for a CRT monitor because they are much cheaper, and the TFT screens save a space I don't need for anything; besides, CRTs are what I need, they sync modes better (they could be set to bizarre res like 555x444 @ 77 Hz if you wanted to, that's what I love of them).

After grabbing information for a day and analyzing it, I'm now deciding between an LG F700B (Flatron) or a Philips 107X (* Note on 107X). They have same price and specs. The LG is supposed to have the best tube (Flatron 0wnz), and it's antiglare treatment is really impressive, it looks like paper, you gotta look well to find the light reflection. Even if you have a lamp near it, the light reflection looks much smaller, dim and displaced than in other monitors. But the Philips contrast is just as impressive, and the LG is darker because of its dark tint glass. It's certainly more contrasted and sharp looking. Having the same price and specs, it's hard to choose between these two.

Do any of you have any experience with any of them, or other LG and Philips monitors? What do you think it's best, to have a nice anti-reflect screen or to have more contrast and brightness?

---
(* Note on 107X): Same specs as 107T, a bit more expensive, but it looks much better. Besides, we have 107Es at University and I don't want to have the same looking monitor at home! LOL, this sounds stupid but it's true, I wouldn't relax.