<!--quoteo(post=1943282:date=Jun 14 2012, 03:01 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Jun 14 2012, 03:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1943282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No he didn't. Find me a source or a reputable person who claims to have heard him say "640k ought to be enough for anybody" or any variation with similar meaning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya I considered replying to that, but then I realised a month down the line someone else is going to post the exact same quote again regardless, a bit like that cant-see-more-than-60FPS bullcrap that keeps coming back from the dead. I do believe Gates said something about a certain number of Kbytes being enough for PC users to run on, but it was also stated in a certain context. Though I don't know why everybody keeps going back to this quote, as Gates has said things that were a lot more questionable than this in the past.
<!--quoteo(post=1943282:date=Jun 14 2012, 04:01 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Jun 14 2012, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1943282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No he didn't. Find me a source or a reputable person who claims to have heard him say "640k ought to be enough for anybody" or any variation with similar meaning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Gore deleted all the sources when he invented the internet.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Personally, I wouldn't mind a max_fps command (or would it be r_maxfps?). I'm running a 60hz monitor, so I wouldn't mind seeing if capping my fps at 60fps has any effect on my gameplay. It seems a bit silly for my GPU to be rendering 100 frames when my monitor is only going to display 60 per second.
<!--quoteo(post=1943282:date=Jun 14 2012, 10:01 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Jun 14 2012, 10:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1943282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No he didn't. Find me a source or a reputable person who claims to have heard him say "640k ought to be enough for anybody" or any variation with similar meaning.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This. A lot of people believe the quote arose from his book, Business @ The Speed of Thought, but I challenge those who believe to actually find it.
Edit: Well, I should reword this. He's said at various times that he didn't think anyone would need more than X memory with respect to running a certain product (DOS version X), but like then, modern operating systems have similar hardware caps in order to establish a high end for what kind of hardware the software can identify. For example, Windows 7 X64 has a physical limit of 192 GB RAM. But the point remains that "640k ought to be enough for anybody" is entirely fabricated from rumour.
<!--quoteo(post=1943290:date=Jun 14 2012, 10:29 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Jun 14 2012, 10:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1943290"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do believe Gates said something about a certain number of Kbytes being enough for PC users to run on, but it was also stated in a certain context.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back when computers had 20 adress lanes(can adress 1024 kB) they chose to make 640kB user accessible(5/8), reserving the rest for system, peripherals, I/O and the like; this is a perfectly sensible compromise.
He said something about not expecting the 640kB limitation to become a problem until 10 years after launch, but they were surprised to find that it only took 5 years for it to become a problem. That's not even remotely close to "640k ought to be enough for anybody" and it was said many years after the supposed quote.
<!--quoteo(post=1943241:date=Jun 14 2012, 12:50 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jun 14 2012, 12:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1943241"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are spouting pure bull######. Go google "human eye fps" and read for a while. The human eye can see far more than 100fps.
Even when using 60hz monitor having FPS above that is still beneficial for mouse movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"FPS" isn't really a concept that translates well to the human eye, but there are definitely diminishing returns past 60FPS and past 120 the difference is so minimal that it might as well not even be there. For most purposes 120FPS will be the most anyone will ever need.
Comments
Ya I considered replying to that, but then I realised a month down the line someone else is going to post the exact same quote again regardless, a bit like that cant-see-more-than-60FPS bullcrap that keeps coming back from the dead. I do believe Gates said something about a certain number of Kbytes being enough for PC users to run on, but it was also stated in a certain context. Though I don't know why everybody keeps going back to this quote, as Gates has said things that were a lot more questionable than this in the past.
Al Gore deleted all the sources when he invented the internet.
This. A lot of people believe the quote arose from his book, Business @ The Speed of Thought, but I challenge those who believe to actually find it.
Edit: Well, I should reword this. He's said at various times that he didn't think anyone would need more than X memory with respect to running a certain product (DOS version X), but like then, modern operating systems have similar hardware caps in order to establish a high end for what kind of hardware the software can identify. For example, Windows 7 X64 has a physical limit of 192 GB RAM. But the point remains that "640k ought to be enough for anybody" is entirely fabricated from rumour.
TLDR: BOOOOOOOO gief more then 100fps so our lurverly screens work as they were intended!
Back when computers had 20 adress lanes(can adress 1024 kB) they chose to make 640kB user accessible(5/8), reserving the rest for system, peripherals, I/O and the like; this is a perfectly sensible compromise.
He said something about not expecting the 640kB limitation to become a problem until 10 years after launch, but they were surprised to find that it only took 5 years for it to become a problem. That's not even remotely close to "640k ought to be enough for anybody" and it was said many years after the supposed quote.
:)
Even when using 60hz monitor having FPS above that is still beneficial for mouse movement.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"FPS" isn't really a concept that translates well to the human eye, but there are definitely diminishing returns past 60FPS and past 120 the difference is so minimal that it might as well not even be there. For most purposes 120FPS will be the most anyone will ever need.