🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:07:32 -0500, "Bonk" <@.> wrote:


T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
advantage of gaming software ?

>This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing =
>another tap dance and song to destract the public away
>from its own current and future product shortcomings.
>What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, =
>once again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
>Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
>3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its =
>geometry engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to =
>3Dfx's Napalm.
>Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in =
>standards, only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have =
>absolutely no AGP mastering support
>but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce =
>unbalanced!?!
>You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without =
>Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
>this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is =
>something you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
>With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no =
>Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel =
>rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
>When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the =
>public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill =
>rate?
>Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card =
>vs. GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge =
>standards
>and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who =
>have good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only =
>is
>3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same =
>defects.
>Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
>3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
>You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name =
>of falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
>Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for =
>the clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
>or get out of the market!
>

In article <37d16ae9.10168811@news.optonline.net>, antispam@usa.com (Malice) wrote:

>T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
>advantage of gaming software ?

Please have someone retrieve your brain.

On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 19:20:49 GMT, jeang@dds.nl (JvG) wrote:

>In article <37d16ae9.10168811@news.optonline.net>, antispam@usa.com (Malice) wrote:
>
>>T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
>>advantage of gaming software ?
>
>Please have someone retrieve your brain.


Excuse me, I left it in your mommies apartment at Hotel Toren..
Maybe next time you deleiver her a gross of condoms who could mail it
back over...thx punk !

T&L is not even in the same ballpark as MMX.  T&L is the future of 3D and I
don't even think 3dfx would deny that.

Barrett

--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Malice <antispam@usa.com> wrote in message
news:37d16ae9.10168811@news.optonline.net...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:07:32 -0500, "Bonk" <@.> wrote:
>
>
> T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
> advantage of gaming software ?
>
> >This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing =
> >another tap dance and song to destract the public away
> >from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> >What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, =
> >once again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> >Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> >3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its =
> >geometry engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to =
> >3Dfx's Napalm.
> >Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in =
> >standards, only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have =
> >absolutely no AGP mastering support
> >but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce =
> >unbalanced!?!
> >You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without =
> >Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> >this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is =
> >something you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> >With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no =
> >Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel =
> >rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> >When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
=
> >public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
=
> >rate?
> >Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card =
> >vs. GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge =
> >standards
> >and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who =
> >have good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only
=
> >is
> >3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same =
> >defects.
> >Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> >3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
> >You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name =
> >of falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> >Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for =
> >the clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> >or get out of the market!
> >
>

Well S3 just announced the Savage2000 which is comparable to the GeForce256
but has a higher fill rate (700MB/s).

3Dfx will be sunk if they don't support 24 bit color, 24 zbuffer,
anti-aliasing and T&L.
Bonk <@.> wrote in message
news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing another
tap dance and song to destract the public away
from its own current and future product shortcomings.
What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, once
again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its geometry
engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's Napalm.
Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in standards,
only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no AGP
mastering support
but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
unbalanced!?!
You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without
Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is something
you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel
rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
rate?
Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card vs.
GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who have
good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same defects.
Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name of
falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for the
clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
or get out of the market!

T & L will not be a flop. Its good to see that low end PC graphics cards are
now starting to incorporate features that are in high end graphics systems.

3Dfx will have to provide T&L or get out of the graphics business.
Malice <antispam@usa.com> wrote in message
news:37d16ae9.10168811@news.optonline.net...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:07:32 -0500, "Bonk" <@.> wrote:
>
>
> T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
> advantage of gaming software ?
>
> >This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing =
> >another tap dance and song to destract the public away
> >from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> >What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, =
> >once again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> >Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> >3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its =
> >geometry engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to =
> >3Dfx's Napalm.
> >Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in =
> >standards, only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have =
> >absolutely no AGP mastering support
> >but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce =
> >unbalanced!?!
> >You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without =
> >Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> >this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is =
> >something you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> >With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no =
> >Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel =
> >rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> >When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
=
> >public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
=
> >rate?
> >Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card =
> >vs. GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge =
> >standards
> >and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who =
> >have good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only
=
> >is
> >3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same =
> >defects.
> >Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> >3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
> >You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name =
> >of falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> >Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for =
> >the clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> >or get out of the market!
> >
>

Bonk <@.> wrote in message
news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net
...

<A lot of stuff, including>

> Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves
> for the clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know
better,
> or get out of the market!

It never ceases to amaze me how passionate people can get about mere
bits of computer equipment!

I think that gaming performance and compatibility have been 3dfx's
strengths in the past.  3dfx will continue to do OK as long as they
continue to deliver in these two areas.  The day they fall behind in
this respect will be the day that they are finished as a company.

Apart from people who are more focussed on hardware itself rather than
playing games, no-one really cares about what functions a card does or
does not support - as long as it delivers the goods with their
favourite games.  That is what counts.

No-one who is seriously into high-end gaming would keep a video card
more than 12 months these days.  Functions that will only be really
important in future games can be left to future cards - that it the
reality of selling into such a quickly changing market.

Cheers - BB

On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:16:32 GMT, "Michael W Holdsworth"
<mwhold@flash.net> wrote:

>Well S3 just announced the Savage2000 which is comparable to the GeForce256
>but has a higher fill rate (700MB/s).

Yep, maybe that one will be able to do antialiasing in real time.

<repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree angle to
each other, against forehead<

John



Bonk <@.> wrote in message
news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing another
tap dance and song to destract the public away
from its own current and future product shortcomings.
What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, once
again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its geometry
engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's Napalm.
Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in standards,
only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no AGP
mastering support
but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
unbalanced!?!
You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without
Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is something
you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel
rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
rate?
Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card vs.
GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who have
good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same defects.
Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name of
falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for the
clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
or get out of the market!

I'm reminded of that Smash Mouth song..."She was lookin' kinda dumb with her
finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead."  ;)

Barrett

--
remove "spamkills" to reply
John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:Y9wA3.116$34.17057@news.oh.voyager.net...
> <repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree angle
to
> each other, against forehead<
>
> John
>
>
>
> Bonk <@.> wrote in message
> news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
> This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing
another
> tap dance and song to destract the public away
> from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it,
once
> again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> 3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its
geometry
> engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's
Napalm.
> Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in
standards,
> only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no AGP
> mastering support
> but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
> unbalanced!?!
> You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without
> Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is something
> you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
> Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel
> rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
> public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
> rate?
> Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card
vs.
> GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
> and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who have
> good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
> 3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same defects.
> Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> 3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
> You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name of
> falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for the
> clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> or get out of the market!
>
>
>

Hmm, how about Rush's "Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the
illusion of integrity"?

John



Barrett Crowe <btcrowe@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7quqrv$o4d$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> I'm reminded of that Smash Mouth song..."She was lookin' kinda dumb with
her
> finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead."  ;)
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:Y9wA3.116$34.17057@news.oh.voyager.net...
> > <repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree
angle
> to
> > each other, against forehead<
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Bonk <@.> wrote in message
> >
news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
> > This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing
> another
> > tap dance and song to destract the public away
> > from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> > What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it,
> once
> > again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> > Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> > 3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its
> geometry
> > engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's
> Napalm.
> > Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in
> standards,
> > only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no AGP
> > mastering support
> > but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
> > unbalanced!?!
> > You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without
> > Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> > this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is
something
> > you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> > With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
> > Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel
> > rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> > When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
> > public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
> > rate?
> > Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card
> vs.
> > GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
> > and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who
have
> > good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
> > 3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same
defects.
> > Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> > 3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
> > You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name
of
> > falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> > Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for
the
> > clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> > or get out of the market!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Is that directed towards 3dfx? ;)

Barrett

--
remove "spamkills" to reply
John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:9DCA3.189$34.24670@news.oh.voyager.net...
> Hmm, how about Rush's "Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter
the
> illusion of integrity"?
>
> John
>
>
>
> Barrett Crowe <btcrowe@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7quqrv$o4d$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I'm reminded of that Smash Mouth song..."She was lookin' kinda dumb with
> her
> > finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead."  ;)
> >
> > Barrett
> >
> > --
> > remove "spamkills" to reply
> > John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:Y9wA3.116$34.17057@news.oh.voyager.net...
> > > <repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree
> angle
> > to
> > > each other, against forehead<
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bonk <@.> wrote in message
> > >
> news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
> > > This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing
> > another
> > > tap dance and song to destract the public away
> > > from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> > > What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it,
> > once
> > > again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> > > Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> > > 3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its
> > geometry
> > > engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's
> > Napalm.
> > > Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in
> > standards,
> > > only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no
AGP
> > > mastering support
> > > but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
> > > unbalanced!?!
> > > You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released,
without
> > > Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> > > this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is
> something
> > > you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> > > With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
> > > Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast
pixel
> > > rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> > > When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract
the
> > > public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of
fill
> > > rate?
> > > Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4
card
> > vs.
> > > GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
> > > and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who
> have
> > > good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
> > > 3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same
> defects.
> > > Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> > > 3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard
wise?
> > > You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the
name
> of
> > > falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> > > Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for
> the
> > > clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> > > or get out of the market!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

No, that would be 'My Sweet Lord' by George Harrison  ;)

John



Barrett Crowe <btcrowe@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7qvavc$29m$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Is that directed towards 3dfx? ;)
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:9DCA3.189$34.24670@news.oh.voyager.net...
> > Hmm, how about Rush's "Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter
> the
> > illusion of integrity"?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Barrett Crowe <btcrowe@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:7quqrv$o4d$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > I'm reminded of that Smash Mouth song..."She was lookin' kinda dumb
with
> > her
> > > finger and her thumb in the shape of an L on her forehead."  ;)
> > >
> > > Barrett
> > >
> > > --
> > > remove "spamkills" to reply
> > > John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Y9wA3.116$34.17057@news.oh.voyager.net...
> > > > <repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree
> > angle
> > > to
> > > > each other, against forehead<
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bonk <@.> wrote in message
> > > >
> >
news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
> > > > This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing
> > > another
> > > > tap dance and song to destract the public away
> > > > from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> > > > What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed
it,
> > > once
> > > > again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> > > > Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> > > > 3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its
> > > geometry
> > > > engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's
> > > Napalm.
> > > > Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in
> > > standards,
> > > > only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no
> AGP
> > > > mastering support
> > > > but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
> > > > unbalanced!?!
> > > > You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released,
> without
> > > > Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> > > > this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is
> > something
> > > > you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> > > > With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with
no
> > > > Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast
> pixel
> > > > rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> > > > When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract
> the
> > > > public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of
> fill
> > > > rate?
> > > > Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4
> card
> > > vs.
> > > > GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge
standards
> > > > and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those
who
> > have
> > > > good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only
is
> > > > 3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same
> > defects.
> > > > Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> > > > 3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard
> wise?
> > > > You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the
> name
> > of
> > > > falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> > > > Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves
for
> > the
> > > > clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> > > > or get out of the market!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:00:27 -0400, "John Reynolds"
<mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote:

>Hmm, how about Rush's "Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the
>illusion of integrity"?
>
>John

Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones, "You just can't get what you want,
but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."
:))

The reason Nvidia's fill rate is lower is because it does subpixal
anti-aliasing.
John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:Y9wA3.116$34.17057@news.oh.voyager.net...
> <repeatedly smacking forefinger and thumb, both held at a 90 degree angle
to
> each other, against forehead<
>
> John
>
>
>
> Bonk <@.> wrote in message
> news:B7A6CAC08E4DE8DB.A94DD019C06C73AC.A32D97FC53A713A8@lp.airnews.net...
> This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing
another
> tap dance and song to destract the public away
> from its own current and future product shortcomings.
> What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it,
once
> again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
> Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
> 3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its
geometry
> engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to 3Dfx's
Napalm.
> Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in
standards,
> only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have absolutely no AGP
> mastering support
> but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce
> unbalanced!?!
> You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without
> Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
> this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is something
> you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
> With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no
> Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel
> rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
> When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the
> public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill
> rate?
> Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card
vs.
> GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge standards
> and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who have
> good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only is
> 3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same defects.
> Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
> 3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
> You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name of
> falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
> Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for the
> clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
> or get out of the market!
>
>
>

John Reynolds <mjolnir@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:9DCA3.189$34.24670@news.oh.voyager.net...
> Hmm, how about Rush's "Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the
> illusion of integrity"?

Looks like we've found a new banner to link to Tom's site.

"Michael W Holdsworth" <mwhold@flash.net> wrote:

>The reason Nvidia's fill rate is lower is because it does subpixal
>anti-aliasing.

Now you're just confusing the matter.   3dfx's yet to be announced
next product is the only one that we know of to do sub pixel
antialiasing.   But we still don't know how that affects their fill
rate.   I seem to recall them saying something to the effect that AA
wouldn't affect performance at all, but maybe all they said was that
you'd still be able to get 60fps with it turned on.   If the latter is
true, does that mean that with it off we'd get 240fps?  :)

thumper1 wrote:
> 
> ?

!

?

Okay was 3dfx not paying attention went S3 did this 5 years ago with
their virge chip.  You would think they would know how this movie
ends.   I do.  Nvidia just became the king of the hill, I hope they
learn from S3 and now 3dfx's errors and stay cutting edge both in
hardware and software.

On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:07:32 -0500, "Bonk" <@.> wrote:

>This week 3Dfx responded to Nvidia's GeForce press release by doing =
>another tap dance and song to destract the public away
>from its own current and future product shortcomings.
>What did 3Dfx use as a defense for their product? Yep, you guessed it, =
>once again 3Dfx is pushing fill rate to compensate for not having
>Transform, Lighting, even 2048x2048 texture size hardware support.
>3Dfx also accused the GeForce chip of being unbalanced because its =
>geometry engine is very powerful but the fill rate is slow compared to =
>3Dfx's Napalm.
>Well, let's see now, 3Dfx's current offering is 2 years behind in =
>standards, only does 16bit color, 256x256 textures and they have =
>absolutely no AGP mastering support
>but 3Dfx has the arrogance to be hypocritical in calling the GeForce =
>unbalanced!?!
>You want to see unbalanced? Look at Napalm when it is released, without =
>Transform and Lighting hardware when Transform and Lighting as of
>this week is the new leading edge video standard. A standard is =
>something you MUST have in order to best utilize what is offered to you.
>With 3Dfx's Napalm, you now don't have a choice, you are stuck with no =
>Transform or Lighting hardware, but oh, hey, you will have a fast pixel =
>rate, if your CPU can keep up!!!
>When will 3Dfx ever catch up? When will 3Dfx stop trying to distract the =
>public away from its lack of features and standards, in the name of fill =
>rate?
>Seems like this week's parody on Ebay and other websites of the V4 card =
>vs. GeForce would give 3Dfx a hint of their lack of leading edge =
>standards
>and would also get them to see themselves as they appear to those who =
>have good eyesight and know better, but it is now apparent that not only =
>is
>3Dfx customers blind, ignorant and arrogant but 3Dfx has the same =
>defects.
>Like they say, birds of a feather, flock together.
>3Dfx, when will you ever catch up technology, feature and standard wise?
>You are spending way too much time on maximizing fill rate, in the name =
>of falling behind everyone else in everything else that matters.
>Get some glasses and some intelligence 3Dfx, and humble yourselves for =
>the clowns you appear to those of us who can see and know better,
>or get out of the market!
>

I don't find any flaw in 3dfx's strategy of getting the frame rates up high
enough where they can add some funky new technology and not have a noticeable
performance hit.  Setting a goal of 60fps in a particular resolution, and then
turning on all the toys and getting like 58fps is a feasible goal.

-Rikk

Shangoman wrote:

> Okay was 3dfx not paying attention went S3 did this 5 years ago with
> their virge chip.  You would think they would know how this movie
> ends.   I do.  Nvidia just became the king of the hill, I hope they
> learn from S3 and now 3dfx's errors and stay cutting edge both in
> hardware and software.
>
> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:07:32 -0500, "Bonk" <@.> wrote:
>

Maybe, but I prefer having the option of turning on all the funky effects
even if I get a noticable performence hit.

Rikk Streng <rikk@nac.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:37DBC705.C6B911B5@nac.net...
> I don't find any flaw in 3dfx's strategy of getting the frame rates up
high
> enough where they can add some funky new technology and not have a
noticeable
> performance hit.  Setting a goal of 60fps in a particular resolution, and
then
> turning on all the toys and getting like 58fps is a feasible goal.
>
> -Rikk
>
> Shangoman wrote:
>
> > Okay was 3dfx not paying attention went S3 did this 5 years ago with
> > their virge chip.  You would think they would know how this movie
> > ends.   I do.  Nvidia just became the king of the hill, I hope they
> > learn from S3 and now 3dfx's errors and stay cutting edge both in
> > hardware and software.

> T & L will be the next MMX, a flop....Oh yea, when will T & L take
> advantage of gaming software ?

Well... at the rate 3dfx is going, probably way before Napalm hit the store
shelves...