Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:19 pm
If you really want power, I think you can flash the firmware on a gtx 295... smokin.
For information and discussion about Oolite.
I don't really understand what you mean.. It says for the 285 1024 mb (1 gb) and for the fx4800 1.5 gb, so neither of them have 4 gb. The choice of the two cards depends on what you plan to use it for primarily. IIRC, the gtx 285 is a gaming card, while the fx4800 is more for graphic design work.local graphics joint offering "EVGA PCIe gtx285 1024mb for Mac" deal (on octo-core)
or "Leadtek PCIe Quadro FX4800 1.5GB MAC" -- no 5800 but I read (?review) both have 4GB
Code: Select all
r2355 (15:24 UTC): Author: ahruman Log: Fixed build under Xcode 3.2 (Snow Leopard). r2356 (17:18 UTC): Author: ahruman Log: Fixed every single Clang static analyzer warning for Oolite itself... although it fails to parse some files. In the process, cleaned up some messy code and fixed a bug where a certain error would not be displayed by the plist validator.
Yes. It gives them the option to work on tasks other than ensuring everything works on PowerPC, which benefits the large majority of customers who are using Intel systems. Programmer time isn’t unlimited (and this generally can’t be solved by throwing more programmers at a problem, even if you have unlimited supplies of money).wackyman465 wrote:I mean, it does add a certain amount of options for the devs for them to ditch PPC support with SL, ay know?
I tend towards cynicism myself, but all the Apple programmers I know to any extent are passionate and driven people who definitely don’t think that way. Each OS release is better than the last, not because the last was bad but because people who are very good at what they do have put a year or more of concentrated effort into making it better. It’s a huge project, and new techniques and new challenges arise all the time.ClymAngus wrote:Of course this leads to a difficult truth for many programmers to swallow. Purposefully bad inefficient, inelegant but future profitable software.
I think this is hugely unfair for a number of reasons.ClymAngus wrote:Of course this leads to a difficult truth for many programmers to swallow. Purposefully bad inefficient, inelegant but future profitable software.
Probably true in 99% of the cases but I know of one occasion of adding deliberate bugs. In 1999 a friend was working on the famous millennium bug in administrative software. They needed a new release to be sold in 2000. But in that software the VAT percentage was hard coded and they already knew the percentage would change in 2001. Wow, new update to be sold in 2001 because the government changed the vat rate. He as programmer was not allowed to make it a user changeable variable. To me it sounded as a big rip-off at that time (and still does).Cmdr James wrote:....ClymAngus wrote:Of course this leads to a difficult truth for many programmers to swallow. Purposefully bad inefficient, inelegant but future profitable software.
Firstly, I think it is outright untrue that any code is purposefully bad. ......, but never because the author wanted, or was instructed to write bad code.