The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know some of you will point out the fact that, in spite of the loss compared to last year's earnings, Nintendo has still accrued a profit to the tune of $600,000,000. While that is a large sum of money it needs to be realized that the amount of that profit is not too far from being HALF of their previous year's profits. That means that Nintendo has that much money LESS to put into things like research and development for things like new games and new systems. Also, game companies are less likely to put their time and money into a company that posts losses as massive as 43%. If this trend continues, it could have some nasty repercussions. People could lose their jobs (I feel sure some heads have already rolled after the news of a profit loss this significant), for one thing. And companies will not want to invest in another company that will not post a meaningful profit for their efforts. So yeah, Nintendo still posted a profit. But when that profit is in the shadow of a previous year that was 43% HIGHER, then the 'profit' tends to lose significance. Just some things to consider.
The Gamecube is costing Nintendo big and sagging sales are a large part of their problem, ditch the deadwood before it's to late.
The Gamecube is costing Nintendo big and sagging sales are a large part of their problem, ditch the deadwood before it's to late.
Page:
Macintosh wrote:
> so why are so many of
> you against the idea of having as much Ram fitted as realistically
> possible?
No one is.
But what use is extra RAM if the processor can't make full use of it.
That's why there's an optimum amount, to make the most of a system for minimum cost/space.
The chances are, that's what Nintendo and Sony have done with the consoles and handhelds.
So people are saying that professional hardware experts have decided on the optimal amount of RAM for these systems, so why argue for more?
> so why are so many of
> you against the idea of having as much Ram fitted as realistically
> possible?
No one is.
But what use is extra RAM if the processor can't make full use of it.
That's why there's an optimum amount, to make the most of a system for minimum cost/space.
The chances are, that's what Nintendo and Sony have done with the consoles and handhelds.
So people are saying that professional hardware experts have decided on the optimal amount of RAM for these systems, so why argue for more?
You've got more RAM than my old PC's hardrive! :-)
gamesfreak wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> I have 1.5Gb of Ram installed on this computer. Anyone got more? And
> I can expand it to 8Gb of Ram. Anyone do more than 8Gb Ram?
>
> You got two 64bit G5's then I gather?
G5 tower with twin 64bit 2.0Ghz CPU's.
> Macintosh wrote:
> I have 1.5Gb of Ram installed on this computer. Anyone got more? And
> I can expand it to 8Gb of Ram. Anyone do more than 8Gb Ram?
>
> You got two 64bit G5's then I gather?
G5 tower with twin 64bit 2.0Ghz CPU's.
gerrid wrote:
> Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
>
> and equal amounts say it's rubbish
>
> Go figure.
>
> Oh, and if you had 8GB of RAM, you would be wasting about 7GB of it,
> because you just DONT NEED IT.
Thats right, I dont need to install 8Gb of Ram - yet.
This is my point about consoles you see.
In the corner of the room is a 1995 Mac 7500. Its clunky, slow, but it had Ram expansion to 512Mb. In 1995 you certainly would not fill it up with that much ram, but if you look around you today, some entry computers still only ship with 256Mb ram fitted - and thats 10 years on!
So, 10 years from now, 8Gb of Ram could well be the standard installation.
I am not saying anyone should relase a console today with 8Gb ram on it, but it doesnt hurt to have as much as possible, so larger software can be use later down the life span of the equipment. The N64 had an expansion pack for the Video Ram, so why are so many of you against the idea of having as much Ram fitted as realistically possible?
> Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
>
> and equal amounts say it's rubbish
>
> Go figure.
>
> Oh, and if you had 8GB of RAM, you would be wasting about 7GB of it,
> because you just DONT NEED IT.
Thats right, I dont need to install 8Gb of Ram - yet.
This is my point about consoles you see.
In the corner of the room is a 1995 Mac 7500. Its clunky, slow, but it had Ram expansion to 512Mb. In 1995 you certainly would not fill it up with that much ram, but if you look around you today, some entry computers still only ship with 256Mb ram fitted - and thats 10 years on!
So, 10 years from now, 8Gb of Ram could well be the standard installation.
I am not saying anyone should relase a console today with 8Gb ram on it, but it doesnt hurt to have as much as possible, so larger software can be use later down the life span of the equipment. The N64 had an expansion pack for the Video Ram, so why are so many of you against the idea of having as much Ram fitted as realistically possible?
Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
In my now retired-from-coding professional opinion... BULL! There is no way on earth that vector processors and MIPS chips are a dream to design for.
The only way you could have the PS2 or PSP down as a dream to design for is you are solely talking about the paper designs. Certainly not easy hardware wise.
Your hardware knowledge doesn't wash with me.
Just out of curiosity, what is your PC setup? 1.5 GB is a baaaad number, it means it isn't running in dual channel, and the majority of systems that could support as much as 8 GB (i.e. 64 bit systems) have dual channel support. Which means you are in fact wasting bandwidth. Although, certain things would be better off having the extra space over the extra bandwidth.
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
In my now retired-from-coding professional opinion... BULL! There is no way on earth that vector processors and MIPS chips are a dream to design for.
The only way you could have the PS2 or PSP down as a dream to design for is you are solely talking about the paper designs. Certainly not easy hardware wise.
Your hardware knowledge doesn't wash with me.
Just out of curiosity, what is your PC setup? 1.5 GB is a baaaad number, it means it isn't running in dual channel, and the majority of systems that could support as much as 8 GB (i.e. 64 bit systems) have dual channel support. Which means you are in fact wasting bandwidth. Although, certain things would be better off having the extra space over the extra bandwidth.
As Icky pointed out below... the ignore button is here for a reason, might have to put it to use for the first time ever...
Please do not feed the 'tard.
Anyone feel like dredging up the DS articles crammed with reams of endlessly positive and excited developer quotes?
And while you're at it, get the ones about the PS2 being a damn hard machine to code for.
That ought to do something.
I say ought to, but Mac-in-tosh seems to think 'no, that's not true' blows everything out the water.
And while you're at it, get the ones about the PS2 being a damn hard machine to code for.
That ought to do something.
I say ought to, but Mac-in-tosh seems to think 'no, that's not true' blows everything out the water.
Macintosh wrote:
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
Probably because they can mash the keyboard with their face and sell whatever comes out for millions.
> Developers often say that PS2 and PSP "are a dream to design
> for".
Probably because they can mash the keyboard with their face and sell whatever comes out for millions.
The staffies can lock topics, can't they?
Page: