5 ms·

Now compare this with modern mobile devices which run slowly and can do a fraction of what PCs were able to do 15 years ago having 10x lower clock rates.

by kombine 13y ago

ekianjo 13y ago
Exactly. Yet every media out there says that "mobile gaming is the future - it will soon catch up with what the consoles and PC can do". Ha!
- sn0v 13y ago
  Interactive gaming with VR? Maybe. Mobile gaming? I'll eat my hat when that happens.
  - hobs 13y ago
    While I agree that fitting 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag is not possible, which device's iteration/selection pressure is greater? What's the difference between gaming 3 years ago on the desktop, vs the mobile platform? I don't even enjoy mobile games usually, but to me it seems like the signs are written in the sand for anyone to see.
- teamonkey 13y ago
  Are you saying that mobile devices aren't capable of playing games of the same graphical and technical complexity as a Windows 95 game? I assure you that isn't true.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    No, what I'm saying is that you will never see an iPad displaying the same complex scene a 500W-PC with a double-SLI card has no problem of taking care of. There is and there will always be a large gap between what you can do in fixed based devices and mobile systems, because of their inherent design goals.
  - csmuk 13y ago
    They certainly can but the input experience is shit and the piddly little screen gives you a headache. Mobile gaming is ok for chopping ropes, throwing birds or cutting up fruit but I'd rather have a windows 95 game with a keyboard and a mouse myself.
trentmb 13y ago
What 'modern' mobile devices are you using?
ebiester 13y ago
So much wrong, I don't know where to start. 1. Compare apples to apples. What could something the size of a phone do in 1998? 2. The current resolution of the iPhone 5 is 1280 x 2272. The game ran on 800x600 with a fraction of the colors, 3. That game sold for what... 35 bucks? Are you comparing what two developers make in a month and a half, selling for 2 bucks with a AAA budget game? Yes, an HTML5 game is going to be slower, but compare one of the top games for the mobile systems and the mobile game today is more impressive. Perhaps 'Need For Speed: Most Wanted'? 4. Clock Rate Isn't Everything. It never has been. Further, the equivalent Pentium 133 laptop is lasting 1.5 hours max with a battery the size of a half dozen iphones. Power matters. 5. Could a mobile-sized device, sans phone (FCC issues) be created that is tuned for speed instead of battery, with a lower grade resolution (compromise for battery and speed), that was faster? Sure. Would anyone buy it? Probably not. Engineering is about compromises. And yes, I'd like to be able to use my computer as a general purpose device, but nobody has stepped up to the plate yet. I mean, we could start with a Cyanogen mod and build up from there, but it's a bigger effort than it looks. But I'll tell you what, let's put it on the backlog. ;)
- zxcdw 13y ago
  Still doesn't change the fact that 15 years ago "we"(as in, programmers, industry, whatever) were much, much more efficient with limited resources than what we are now. Some people consider it a good thing, some of us consider it a bad thing.
  - peterhunt 13y ago
    This is a meme. Everything high quality happening on mobile is crazy resource constrained.
    - yohanatan 13y ago
      While it may in fact technically be a 'meme', I think a better word is 'myth'.
    - code_duck 13y ago
      1-2 gb of ram is insane luxury compared to say, the Amiga which typically had 1000 times less - 512k or 1mb of main ram and the same amount of 'chip' ram (for video/audio processing). I'm not a mobile device expert, but programmers don't have to think that much about 512k on an iphone, do they? On an Amiga it was often all you had for the entire system including the OS.
null_ptr 13y ago
That's what you get when everything has to be implemented in JavaScript or else it's not hip enough to put on the internet.
code_duck 13y ago
Huh? My Galaxy S3 is noticeably more powerful than my Micron Pentium II system from 1998, in terms of specs as well as actual performance. The fact that it's running Android and not Win98 doesn't hurt.
- randomhunt 13y ago
  Don't you think Win9x would _scream_ on your GS3 though? ;-)
  - cmccabe 13y ago
    Speaking as someone who lived through that period of time, I think anyone using Win9x would scream.
  - code_duck 13y ago
    We should do it: the Win9x on ARM project!
    - tanzam75 13y ago
      Win9x is not a portable OS. Because of its DOS and Windows heritage, the underpinnings are very much tied to x86 and would be difficult to port to ARM. (Although not as difficult as OS/2, which uses the dreaded ring 1.) Whereas Windows NT has always been portable. Except that Microsoft has already ported NT to ARM.
      - code_duck 13y ago
        Indeed, I realize this. My comment was mainly facetious, I admit. Porting DOS/Win98 would be totally silly anyway unless you needed a blue screen generator. Porting ReactOS would start to make sense, if anyone wanted that - say, there was a desire to run windows programs on modern mobile hardware without licensing fees (rendering farm? Most use cases I can imagine would be better served by Linux anyway). Otherwise... Emulation such has DOSBOX makes the most sense for anyone who desires to run legacy Win32 software.
csomar 13y ago
I'm actually pretty amazed with what my iPad and Android can render (considering the resolution/colors). I raced cars and played footaball on the iPad. The experience is great.

Now compare this with modern mobile devices which run slowly and can do a fraction of what PCs were able to do 15 years ago having 10x lower clock rates.

by kombine 13y ago

Now compare this with modern mobile devices which run slowly and can do a fraction of what PCs were able to do 15 years ago having 10x lower clock rates.

ekianjo 13y ago

Exactly. Yet every media out there says that "mobile gaming is the future - it will soon catch up with what the consoles and PC can do". Ha!

sn0v 13y ago
Interactive gaming with VR? Maybe. Mobile gaming? I'll eat my hat when that happens.
- hobs 13y ago
  While I agree that fitting 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag is not possible, which device's iteration/selection pressure is greater? What's the difference between gaming 3 years ago on the desktop, vs the mobile platform? I don't even enjoy mobile games usually, but to me it seems like the signs are written in the sand for anyone to see.
teamonkey 13y ago
Are you saying that mobile devices aren't capable of playing games of the same graphical and technical complexity as a Windows 95 game? I assure you that isn't true.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  No, what I'm saying is that you will never see an iPad displaying the same complex scene a 500W-PC with a double-SLI card has no problem of taking care of. There is and there will always be a large gap between what you can do in fixed based devices and mobile systems, because of their inherent design goals.
- csmuk 13y ago
  They certainly can but the input experience is shit and the piddly little screen gives you a headache. Mobile gaming is ok for chopping ropes, throwing birds or cutting up fruit but I'd rather have a windows 95 game with a keyboard and a mouse myself.

trentmb 13y ago

What 'modern' mobile devices are you using?

ebiester 13y ago

So much wrong, I don't know where to start. 1. Compare apples to apples. What could something the size of a phone do in 1998? 2. The current resolution of the iPhone 5 is 1280 x 2272. The game ran on 800x600 with a fraction of the colors, 3. That game sold for what... 35 bucks? Are you comparing what two developers make in a month and a half, selling for 2 bucks with a AAA budget game? Yes, an HTML5 game is going to be slower, but compare one of the top games for the mobile systems and the mobile game today is more impressive. Perhaps 'Need For Speed: Most Wanted'? 4. Clock Rate Isn't Everything. It never has been. Further, the equivalent Pentium 133 laptop is lasting 1.5 hours max with a battery the size of a half dozen iphones. Power matters. 5. Could a mobile-sized device, sans phone (FCC issues) be created that is tuned for speed instead of battery, with a lower grade resolution (compromise for battery and speed), that was faster? Sure. Would anyone buy it? Probably not. Engineering is about compromises. And yes, I'd like to be able to use my computer as a general purpose device, but nobody has stepped up to the plate yet. I mean, we could start with a Cyanogen mod and build up from there, but it's a bigger effort than it looks. But I'll tell you what, let's put it on the backlog. ;)

zxcdw 13y ago
Still doesn't change the fact that 15 years ago "we"(as in, programmers, industry, whatever) were much, much more efficient with limited resources than what we are now. Some people consider it a good thing, some of us consider it a bad thing.
- peterhunt 13y ago
  This is a meme. Everything high quality happening on mobile is crazy resource constrained.
  - yohanatan 13y ago
    While it may in fact technically be a 'meme', I think a better word is 'myth'.
  - code_duck 13y ago
    1-2 gb of ram is insane luxury compared to say, the Amiga which typically had 1000 times less - 512k or 1mb of main ram and the same amount of 'chip' ram (for video/audio processing). I'm not a mobile device expert, but programmers don't have to think that much about 512k on an iphone, do they? On an Amiga it was often all you had for the entire system including the OS.

null_ptr 13y ago

That's what you get when everything has to be implemented in JavaScript or else it's not hip enough to put on the internet.

code_duck 13y ago

Huh? My Galaxy S3 is noticeably more powerful than my Micron Pentium II system from 1998, in terms of specs as well as actual performance. The fact that it's running Android and not Win98 doesn't hurt.

randomhunt 13y ago
Don't you think Win9x would _scream_ on your GS3 though? ;-)
- cmccabe 13y ago
  Speaking as someone who lived through that period of time, I think anyone using Win9x would scream.
- code_duck 13y ago
  We should do it: the Win9x on ARM project!
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    Win9x is not a portable OS. Because of its DOS and Windows heritage, the underpinnings are very much tied to x86 and would be difficult to port to ARM. (Although not as difficult as OS/2, which uses the dreaded ring 1.) Whereas Windows NT has always been portable. Except that Microsoft has already ported NT to ARM.
    - code_duck 13y ago
      Indeed, I realize this. My comment was mainly facetious, I admit. Porting DOS/Win98 would be totally silly anyway unless you needed a blue screen generator. Porting ReactOS would start to make sense, if anyone wanted that - say, there was a desire to run windows programs on modern mobile hardware without licensing fees (rendering farm? Most use cases I can imagine would be better served by Linux anyway). Otherwise... Emulation such has DOSBOX makes the most sense for anyone who desires to run legacy Win32 software.

csomar 13y ago

I'm actually pretty amazed with what my iPad and Android can render (considering the resolution/colors). I raced cars and played footaball on the iPad. The experience is great.