VirusType2
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 18,189
- Reaction score
- 2
Complaining about what, now? When? I'm not complaining.So if you had a 256MB video card, why were you just complaining that it must have looked so terrible compared pixel-to-pixel with an Xbox?
XBOX: 64MB of shared RAM hooked up to S-Video -> VGA converter box into VGA monitor. (I'm a videophile).
PC: 512MB RAM or (1024MB RAM + 256MB dedicated video) hooked up to VGA.
Why is it hard to believe it pants'ed the Xbox, gamecube, PS2?
1280x720 or even 800x600 (computer resolution) was much better than old school Standard Definition TV: 720x480p (NTSC). Especially because it was VGA output from the video card.
WOw..I don't even know what you are talking about... incite yourself? Intentionally withholding information? Are you accusing me of baiting a trap? I would never. :angel: No seriously, I'm just kind of having quite a time with my life recently and haven't the time to elaborate unless you ask.Now I have to ask which manufacturer and chipset your card was. It seems like you're intentionally withholding information to get me to incite myself.
This was 7 years ago. I'm pretty sure it was an ATI Radeon 9250 256MB PCI.
OK, I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying "You are able to see a picture on them?" You must be on drugs,"My eyes popped out of the sockets viewing the "high resolution" textures on this monitor that was practically free."
This makes no sense. Even monitors sold as combo deals with discount computers on Black Friday have a standard of manufacturing. You are able to see a picture on them. That would be enough to show you how terrible the texture resolution was, if they were as sarcastically high-resolution as you claim.
It makes sense because the computer itself was possibly worth $200, not including all the accessories it came with. A complete system with Windows XP Home installed. Just plug it in and go!
So the monitor was practically free in my opinion. Or you could say XP was practically free. Whatever you want. But I say the monitor because I'm making a comparison to a half-decent monitor that you might buy separately. I'm telling you, eMachines used the cheapest shit (roller ball mouse, the worst speakers ever, crap keyboard). Also, just for what it's worth, I didn't even know it also came with a monitor since my brother called me on the phone from the store -
BROTHER: "You want a computer? $200, you can pay me back."
ME: "OK, yeah.")
The resolution wasn't that great, being a crappy monitor. The max was 1280x720 or in that range. Yeah, now my monitor is 1920x1080, which is pretty standard (and absolutely gorgeous), and much better than current consoles, which play games at 720p or less ... example:
Just like its predecessor, Modern Warfare 2 will run at a sub-HD resolution of 600p on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles.
So for games, current consoles are using a resolution that PCs used 7 years ago (standard tech on the PC), or less!
But either way, 720p (1280x720) is ridiculously better than standard def (720x480), although the framerate of consoles is often 30FPS, from what I've been hearing.
But 1080p at 60hz is the new "eye popping" standard that I'm used to.
They already have 120hz and recently even 240hz (refresh rate) monitors.
My brother bought a 360 just to play Geometry Wars 2, and a PS3 just for LBP, so it's not like I don't still love you fools.
Ridiculous.