TPU ChatChat on IRC
Internet Relay Chat?
Java Applet client
Who's on IRC?
Taubz, what resolution are you running?!
Posted by gian [send private reply] at December 29, 2001, 05:56:45 PM The site no longer fits into 1152x(whatever)! I think we should stick with the old design for now... 3 columns just makes it seem to cluttered...
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at December 29, 2001, 06:10:37 PM It fits on mine (1280x1024) but I HATE it, WTF were you thinking?
Posted by gian [send private reply] at December 29, 2001, 07:00:27 PM I think it was to give the Quickstart guides more prominence...
Posted by taubz [send private reply] at December 30, 2001, 11:52:29 AM Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I thought I'd downplay the news and message boards, which will get extra attention because they're very dynamic, by putting them smaller and off to the side... That would (hopefully) bring a lot more focus to the guides, which are often overlooked. (And less focus to the member sites and creations.... which I think are generally not very helpful.)
That being said, if you seriously think it's worse this way... Well, I think the original layout *only* pushed people to look at the forums and news. Our userbase is growing - we need to think (as per the other thread) about how to restructure the main page to accomodate whatever it is that we want TPU to provide. Anything below the first screenful will probably not get read.
(Oh, BTW, I was using 800x600 when changing it, so it definitely works on that resolution.)
Posted by gian [send private reply] at December 30, 2001, 11:26:30 PM Yes, but IE lets div tags run off the screen... what browser were you using? because Mozilla resizes them to fit, and treats them much like tables...
Posted by DakeDesuDx [send private reply] at December 31, 2001, 04:20:26 PM Well, all I can sayis that with a window sized to about 640x480 on a 1024X756(whatever) it looks okay.... though I am in Mozilla...
I just wish I could figure out how to install that stupid SiS driver, so I could use all of 1024x at once.
Posted by DakeDesuDx [send private reply] at January 01, 2002, 10:41:31 PM CodeRed, what are you on about? I do not see any mention of "onboard video" here... all the SiS driver does is make it so that I can look at more than a 640x480 Portition of my screen set at 1024x756... Though it is kind of freaky, cause when I move the mouse cursor outside of my small viewing port, that portition pans onto to here the cursor is :)... The SiS driver is a driver that needs to be installed so that my S3Virge video card works a little more decently. :)
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at January 02, 2002, 10:26:01 AM Oh... I didn't know sis made actual graphics cards... still I wouldn't be caught dead with one in my machine.
Posted by DakeDesuDx [send private reply] at January 02, 2002, 10:49:03 AM Okay, I think we have a failure to communicate here cause each of us is using a different meaning to SiS... which accromyns have been known to conflict. It is not sis that made my video card, it was Acer, the video card is officailly: S3Virge SVGA card, as called by Linux's probing and what Win 95 said when I first looked it up...
I will note that I am actually happy I had a company as horrible as Acer make my computer... how often is it you get a 36.6KBPS modem capable of speeds of 112.78KBPS (I am still laughing about it :-)? How often is it that a motherboard which should only support PC66 according to its manual, seems not to care about PC133 RAM... I still have yet to test to see if the manula was accurate in its limit of how much I have... it would not suprise me if despite my mother board saying its limit was 256Megs, I could manage to get it to work at 1 Gig of RAM...
This computer may look like an old beater, but due to some stoke of luck I had, it is hardly a lemon. 112K modem ^_^; when my ISP is not monitoring loads and stuff like that, I can get away with downloads going at 10-12K/sec... that is with dialup... Options for a new technology (at the time) of USB, though the actaully ports did not come with the motherboard, the motherboard is still capable of accepting allowing REAL usb ports added on, even though it did not come with them. MMX technology, which is still used in a lot of Linux technology (I have noticed atleast), and an overkill processor of 200Mhz for my current tasks. About the only thing I have had to change is the software, and maybe add a 128Meg stick. All this value at under a thousand bucks in the year 1998.
I like my beater computer ^_^. The hardware is so far behind it thinks its ahead and is ahead of the race.
My main goal is to upgrade this computer to the point, where I can use it as a server of several NC terminals.
As you can see, I am quite clearly insane
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at January 02, 2002, 04:39:40 PM HAHAHA... your modem is not connecting at 112k, it just says that, my 56k does the same thing ever since I switched ISP's. It used to say between 48000-56000 now it says 112000, but I guarantee there is no speed difference. And the S3Virge is a SiS card (did some research).... It has a SiS GPU on it... Acer did not make your video card. Buy a GeForce 2, or 3 TI500 if you can afford it.
Posted by DakeDesuDx [send private reply] at January 02, 2002, 07:09:08 PM No, when I say it is connected at 112K it is not from false reports anywhere I just monitor download speeds that I use. When you see a download going at 10-12K/sec and the bytes read increasing by 10 each time they go up, then you shall know this feeling.
As for getting a new video card.. why whould I waste my money? My current one claims only to be 2Megs (in the reciept atleast)... which would allow a resolution of 640X480 maybe 8bit 800x600, but just by simply tell the computer it is 8 or even 16 megs, it will still work. And I know, I've tried it. I am currently at 1200x7-whatever. The only problem is I need to install a SiS driver.
These figures of how much res I can handle are based on me screwing around wit the settings...
See I told you my computer was so backwards, that it actually was forwards.
Posted by Mike_L [send private reply] at January 13, 2002, 07:39:29 PM DakeDesuDx,
33.6 modems support data compression. This allows compressible data (like html) to be transferred at well above the usual 3KB/sec limit. Try downloading some data that has already been compressed, like JPEG images, or MP3s, and you will see the actual performance of your modem.
As for video frame buffers, let's do some math:
8 bits take up one byte
800 * 600 * 1 byte = 480,000 bytes
This is half a meg of RAM.
1024 bytes = 1 KB
1024 KB = 1 MB
So if your card has 2MB of RAM then it has:
1024 * 1024 * 2 = 2097152 bytes
This is enough RAM to run 1024x768 in 16bit color.
Personally I wouldn't recommend running at 1024x768 unless you had a 19" monitor. I must say that 16-bit color is a LOT better than 8-bit.
Hope this helps
Posted by DakeDesuDx [send private reply] at January 15, 2002, 05:46:29 PM Its not just 1024x756, it is also WAY higher res.. I've experimented and can do atleast 1600xsomething at 24bit w/o problems. Though I am not sure about compression, cause when I have actually set up my video card correctly at 2Megs, it would not let me go any higher than 800x600 16Bit. Even though it is Linux, the way the setup files are currently set up, I cannot just put in 2Megs, then 1600xWhatever, and expect to be allowed to do it. If I were to run the setup file (/usr/sbin/setup) I would say I have a NEC MultiSync 5FGe monitor, then say how much RAM I have, then choose the resolution. The resolution that I am able to chose is based on the previous two options. If I were to plug in 4megs into video memory, instead of 2megs, I would be presented with different resolutions that I could choose (the 4megs would have more options than the 2megs).
So I honestly have no idea about compression, or what it has to do with stuff.
As for my modem. Unless kernel.org was being dumb, and did not compress the bunzip download of the kernel properly, then compression has even less to do with my modem. For the first little bit, I was getting 10K/sec download on that, and not that stupid program just guessing it is 10K/sec, then slowly lowering that number down to 2-4K/sec, it was consitantly being at 10K/sec for about five minutes. Then my ISP must have caught on, because I stopped receiving any data, then I started downloading at 3-4K/sec.
I will note, that based on differences in files sizes, Bunzip is a more heavier compression (Heavier than both Gunzip and Zip). So basically I do not believe you, cause too much evidence is pointing elsewhere.
Posted by gian [send private reply] at January 15, 2002, 05:52:49 PM Modem compression is done at a very low level...
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at January 28, 2002, 11:22:40 AM Your ISP did not "catch on" and lower your speed, it's called bursting, download a 1k file, you'll get like 50k/s or something ridiculouse like that, too bad it only lasts 15-30sec
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at January 28, 2002, 11:26:38 AM Oh, and a 2mb vidcard is a POS, my G2 Pro is 64mb 5.0ns DDR @ 375mhz FSB, it has a quad-pumped 256bit GPU that can handle nearly 1 trillian triangles/second (all 3D models are drawn using triangles). I can run Half Life @ 1600x1200x32 with an average FPS of 45, I score ~5000 on 3DMark 2001
Posted by gian [send private reply] at January 28, 2002, 05:47:44 PM Indeed... I like my GF2 lots, but I still want a GF3... have you seen one of those things running? They rock... lots.
Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at January 28, 2002, 08:29:00 PM Oh I know, if only I had $400 to spare, but as it is I can't afford all the books I need for school
Register as a new user