Welcome.

Read this first like you were supposed to.

Threads like this are discouraged and you'd have known that.

At 5/17/08 06:35 PM, DragonsGrief wrote: Tiny program playing a streamed song from somewhere else

Doubt it. More likely it was compiled synthesizer and sequence of notes played realtime. I've seen it done with 15 minute 3D animations with a full (and very awesome) soundtrack.

Example of one in 64kb. TOTALLY WORTH WATCHING. DOWNLOAD AND RUN THIS.

And more

Yeah, it's an executable, but I'm pretty sure I can be somewhat trusted around here.

I think I was only banned once, in 2003 for a rule that I don't think is enforced anymore...

Using the word "gay" negatively.

At 5/17/08 04:00 PM, EMINEM08 wrote:

Nice prediction. And Rage, I only wanted to know what would be better to save money on a quality laptop.

If saving money is one of your priorities, then you sure as hell shouldn't be looking at a stupid MacBook. It doesn't matter what all the Mac enthusiasts love to say about their machines -- Apple is the only store in the world that gets away with charging retards three to four times what the computer is worth on a component-to-component basis.

Looking at a similarly priced (and by similarly I mean lesser-priced) configuration from Dell, which I personally wouldn't be too fond of buying from either, you get these sorts of comparisons:

RAM:

Dell: 2gb standard. Upgrading to 4gb: +$100
Apple: 1gb standard. Upgrading to 4gb: +$300

Both DDR2 667MHz

Hard Drive:

Dell: 160gb standard. Upgrading to 250GB: $50
Apple: 120gb standard. Upgrading to 250GB: $150 (Upgrading from 160: $100)

Both 5400 rpm SATA

And so on.

The base price of the Dell was $999. The Mac: $1,099.

Configuration for a laptop with a 2.4 duo core processor, 4gb of RAM and a 250gb (all equal specifications): Dell, $1,324. Apple: $1,599.00.

Apple's site says nothing about a video card, where the Dell has a 128mb NVidia 8400M GS plus free antivirus and a fingerprint scanner. Both have cameras.

Now let's be honest, here. If this were a desktop PC, the difference would be more retardedly dramatic. Since there's no economical way to build a laptop, though, the difference won't be as huge. From looking at what you want from your laptop (more disk space, more RAM), though, the difference will be there.

All I'm saying is shop around. Don't be an idiot like 99% of college freshmen and go straight to Apple.com to fork over an unjustified amount of cash.

Don't you find it strange that you're basing your preference on what other people think of the computers when the only opinion that matters is your own?

Those two different platforms typically cater to ... different people.

You're going there to work in the first place. Might as well use more of your head while you're at it. It's not like it negatively affects the quality of life on the outside.

And we're supposed to discuss what? You can't even see anything in the picture. Don't bother.

At 5/16/08 12:49 AM, Bolo wrote:

No more untruths, please.

Your thread is full of them, and whoring it out is a stupid idea when you openly admit you don't know shit about computer hardware. In defending it, you make arguments such as "Macs aren't expensive because you can sell them back for a better price" which is completely irrelevant to its cost of ownership. You also rely on posting a volume of articles written by Mac partisan bloggers, all of which collectively spout the same drivel. Good thing nobody actually reads all of those, huh?

Also, a link to a store that sells horribly overpriced Mac hardware isn't proof for anything. A lot of Mac machines simply cannot accept certain upgrades and it's not really up for dispute. Have fun letting Apple milk you for money.

At 5/15/08 09:07 PM, Peacekid wrote: RageVI, I'm getting an Alienware (if theres another one you or anyone else can recommend, I'd be happy to take up on that), with these specs:

First, what's the price on that configuration?

Large, blunt, metal object.

Seriously, though, we don't need an image gallery of any kind. Including weapons.

At 5/15/08 05:25 AM, Rosenrot-I wrote:

Not rly. Any motherboard built for a dual/quad core processor can withstand mild overclocking. If you're doing something insignificant like going from 2.6 to 3Ghz, then you won't even need extra cooling equipment. E.g. I have a dual core with a native clock speed of 2.3 and I've overclocked it to 3 with no problems and no temperature dramas. With the stock fan.

Bad generalization. Just because a motherboard has the appropriate socket for its processor doesn't mean:

-It will adjust the VCore or other voltage settings reliably
-It will let you even overclock in the first place
-If it lets you overclock, it might not let you adjust memory timings
-In the case of an unrecoverable failure (And you'll probably have one), if the CMOS settings will be backed up so you don't have to do a hard reset.

It shouldn't matter whether it's a prebuilt or not. In the end it's still the same hardware, you're just paying for someone else to put it together.

In the last pre-built computer I'll ever get:

-I had to destructively tear out a couple pieces to install a new video card
-I had to cut in to the case with a rotary tool to install my sound card
-I had to remove 50% of the casing to install a new optical drive
-I cannot replace the PSU, CPU, or cooling without significant difficulty.

I'll say it again. It depends on the company. Because the original poster hasn't really specified the company that's building it or the case it'll use, we can't just make generalizations. Overclocking is nice, but you shouldn't allow people to make their decision under the pretense that they'll be able to do it without difficulty if there's a possibility that they will.

At 5/15/08 04:16 AM, Peacekid wrote: - Dual 3.16 Ghz, or Quad 2.66? I mean the totals are different, but does that mean anything?

This depends on what you're going to do.

If you're doing heavy multitasking or other tasks such as 3D rendering or video encoding, you will benefit more from the four cores.

If you're doing casual computer use and computer gaming, you will benefit from the two cores with the faster clock speed.

- Dual Graphics card, or single powerful one? I'm bouncing between a single 1 GB Raedon or dual nVidia 9600 GT ("SUPERCLOCKED"), which leads up to the same amount of VRAM, or a dual 8800 GT 'SLI enabled'. And can someone tell me the advantages/disadvantages?

There isn't really any single video card right now that is better than two pre-gen cards in SLI/Crossfire. I'd go with the 8800 GT SLI. It actually performs better than some 9600 cards in some cases.

- 4 GB, or 2 GB "Low Latency" RAM?

Not sure what latency you get with "low latency" but I'd still personally go with the 4 GB.

- What is a RAID harddrive?

Firstly, RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent Disks". Think of it as SLI but for hard drives. In other words, it's using multiple hard drives (ideally of indentical brands and capacities) to increase performance and/or reliability.

There are numerous ways that you can have RAID configured, but the most typical ones are RAID 0 and RAID 1.

RAID 0:
When you write a file, it gets split apart and written on all the hard drives at the same time. This effectively doubles (or triples, or quadruples, depending on how many drives are in the array) the write speed. It also works for reading files. When you read a file, it will read all the pieces of the file from each hard drive at the same time, reaping the same performance benefit.

Pros:
-Dramatically increased performance in both reading and writing.

-Since files are being "spread apart" on all the hard drives, your total capacity will be the sum of all the hard drives put together (For example, if you have 3 100gb hard drives in RAID 0, your total capacity will be 300gb)

Cons:
-If you lose the data on one hard drive (due to hard drive failure or anything else), then ALL the data on every hard drive is lost. Because each hard drive contains fragments of each individual file, if one were to be lost, the data pieces on the rest of the hard drives become useless garbage. If you use RAID 0, make doubly sure that you have a reliable data backup.

RAID 1

This is the same as RAID 0 except for one thing: Instead of writing pieces of the file across multiple hard drives, the file in entirety is written to every hard drive. Because the entire file is being written to each hard drive, the writing performance won't be any different than that of a single drive. However, the reading performance increase will be there.

Pros:
-More reliable storage of data. If one of the hard drives were to fail, you still have the full data on the other drive(s), meaning no data is lost.

-Dramatically increased performance in reading files

Cons:
-Because every hard drive is a "mirror" of the other hard drives, your total capacity will only be equal to the lowest capacity drive in the array (but usually they all have the same capacity). In other words, if you have 3 100gb hard drives in RAID 1, your capacity will still be 100gb

-No performance increase in writing files

- Please and thx lol

yes this is a prebuilt Iol, I have my reasons - I'd build one, but again, I have my reasons. So please, don't bother.

And those people who are telling you to overclock the quad core processor yourself are not quite giving good advice. Because it is a pre-built computer, you have no guarantee that this will even be feasible. It completely depends on the manufacturer and your motherboard/case. Many pre-built computers are made without any consideration of if you'll be putting extra cooling equipment inside it (there might not be room). Also, the fact that you're buying a pre-built computer insinuates that you might not be comfortable doing this in the first place. Buying a pre-built computer and then overclocking it doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.

I didn't want you to suck up in a couple of sentences. I wanted a whole paragraph.

That is, if you know what's best for him. How awesome are the mods, again?

At 5/14/08 08:47 AM, videogamer0810 wrote:

At 5/14/08 05:26 AM, Jezuz wrote: Hate to do this again. Still have no real answers here, sorry for the bumps.

This guy says it's only good if you apply yourself seriously.

You'll pretty much succeed in anything if you apply yourself seriously, regardless of what school you go to. To put that in other words, that's of no merit to Full Sail. If you are going to apply yourself seriously in the first place, then you'd better be serious about what school you go to. The sentiment that Full Sail is a joke is shared by a lot of people, including ones in the industry.

The marketing makes it look pretty, but that's skin deep. Because they have ads on places like Newgrounds and in game magazines, it draws in a lot of people for being in their interests. However, basing what school you go to on a banner ad is a horrible idea. Look at real schools and do research on similar [better] programs being offered. You'd do that if you were serious about your work, and people who are anything but usually don't get hired.

Glitch! Chainsaw!

No but seriously: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/9042 93

You could make the same video for any country in the world. Ask simple questions. Cut out the ones that answer correctly and make a montage of idiocy.

This thread has also been made a half dozen threads with the very same video.

At 5/10/08 01:33 AM, Madferit wrote:

I do 3d modeling and programming, and I feel I could do ALOT better than my 2 GB right here.

The 3D rendering I'm talking about isn't the same kind as that of an early teenager tinkering around in a 3D program. Like someone else said, you probably have other bottlenecks.

Programming, unless you're loading gigantic data sets or something, isn't going to benefit a whole lot from extra RAM. Although it depends on what you're doing, you typically don't need too great of a machine for this at all.

At 5/10/08 01:32 AM, evilXbanana wrote:

At 5/9/08 11:16 PM, TomsPulp wrote:

Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core Processor QX9650 (4x 3.0GHz/12MB L2 Cache/1333FSB)

Enjoy those idle cores

How painfully obvious could you possibly make it that you're a little jealous? Combing through his post and talking smack at computer hardware components? Not everyone uses their machines to browse the internet and type seething posts. Jesus.

With that said, I still think it's a bad time to build a computer. It's been 1.5+ years since a real upgrade to video card lineups, Intel's revolutionary Nehalem processor architecture is out later this year, DDR3 will be worth buying, and maybe even solid state drives will have a more noticeable part in the market soon.

I'm going to build a 16-core rig next year. It'll be great at everything else, too, but I sure would love to have a good rendering machine.

Windows comes in 64 bit for both XP and Vista. If you're just doing "gaming and general applications", you're not going to need it. If you're doing rendering, video editing, audio production, large-scale image editing and things of that like, more is better.

We're not talking about making a slide show of family vacation photos here. For what you're talking about, 4gb of RAM would still excessive in most, if not all, of your needs.

Full Sail is a joke. You'll pay out the ass for a degree that lots of other people consider a joke. Lots of schools teach the exact same things that Full Sail tries to teach, and better. Their marketing looks attractive, but that's just skin-deep. Go to a real school...

This isn't a viable subject title at all.

AIM handles are in user profiles.

How does what work? If you're trying to use a smiley inside your post, you can't. The "Thread mood" face you select shows at the top right of your post, not in its body.

You might want to check this page out too

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there can't be a good reason that this topic has 4 pages.

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, LCurtis wrote: AS3 Lang. Ref. Stage.removeChild(child:DisplayObject)

You should be passing the variable that references the child that you want to remove.

Like:

var myMC:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
stage.addChild(myMC);
stage.removeChild(myMC);

If you want to remove based on its "name" property you need to use getChildByName to get a reference to the child. Then pass that reference to removeChild(). You can find info on getChildByName through the link I posted.

Awesome. I somehow passed that up, but that's exactly what I needed to know.

So I have this:

var target:DisplayObject = getChildByName("tile"+i+"x"+j);
if(target){// test for null
	removeChild(target);
}

It seems to work just fine, but I somehow end up with some Blocks in places where they shouldn't be (in an index 'slot' that's currently 0 in the array). That might be something else though. I'll see.

Thanks a bunch.

At 4/25/08 06:07 PM, Woadraiders wrote: You should look at the help docs before asking for help

Trust me when I say I know a lot better than to post before looking for the solution myself. By "child reference name", do you mean the .name property? Trying this:

removeChild("tile"+i+"x"+j);

Returns this compilation error:

1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type String to an unrelated type flash.display:DisplayObject

I also tried numerous different variants of that. Evidently removeChild doesn't refer to an actual object or something.

At 4/25/08 06:00 PM, souled wrote:

At 4/25/08 05:57 PM, RageVI wrote: Whoops ... Messed up my first link

It's the same...

And sorry I would help but I only know AS2.

Yeah, I just noticed. The BBS must be borking up the link somehow. Just Google "Conway's game of life" and it'll be the first result.

Whoops ... Messed up my first link

And to clarify, if I had a child named "tile5x3" created in the context I showed above, isn't there a way to remove it by its name? I'm pretty sure there's a really easy solution to this.

Hey all...

I'm trying to script a really simple celluar automation program like this. I am not new to programming at all, but this is my first experience with Actionscript.

Background:

The stage is 400x400 pixels. I have a 20x20 2D array (Named "grid") that stores 0s and 1s. The 2D array is traversed with two nested for loops. A black square (A movie clip with the class name "Block") will be created and placed depending on its indexes in the array (Offset by 20 pixels for each index value). Each child is given the name "tile"+i+"x"+j. For example, if a block is being displayed in positon (5,3) on the grid, the child's name would be "tile5x3"

The problem:

I can create the blocks no problem (Thanks for the help jmtb02), but I've no idea how to remove them. Since these blocks will be coming and going in this program, that's a big problem.

The code snippet:

I believe this has everything you need to see. Let me know if you need to see more. Keep in mind that this code works just fine. I just don't have a clue on how to take this next step. I see functions floating around like "getChildByName" but I'm not sure how to use it properly.

function createBlocks():void {
	var currBlock:MovieClip;
	for (var i:int=0; i<20; i++) {
		for (var j:int = 0; j<20; j++) {
			if (grid[j][i]==1) { // If there is a 1 in the array right here, place the object
				currBlock = new Block();
				currBlock.x = 20*i;
				currBlock.y = 20*j;
				currBlock.name = "tile"+i+"x"+j;
				//trace(currBlock.name);
				addChild(currBlock);
			}
			else{// If there's a 0 here, remove any object that would be here.
				//How do I remove it?
			}
		}
	}
}

Here is a screenshot of the program working so far.

At 4/24/08 09:28 PM, Patcoola wrote:

no you still don't know your hardware and i don't think intel sells there M-Processors to the public.

the macbookpro's uses the Penryn 45nm Intel Core 2 Duo technology with up to a 2.6 GHz processor with 6MB L2 cache 800 FSB 35W

I know you're probably talking to him, and not me, but the processor you're referring to (Intel C2D T9500, which you can most certainly purchase as a member of the "public") is the most expensive option you can choose. At least according to Apple's site. I'm sure you know how processors take a ridiculous price hike for a small increase in clock speed and a slightly bigger cache. Even then it costs roughly half the price you first said.

The "lower" chip I originally talked to still costs around $300 and is a much better buy -- Point being that Apple rips you off on that machine.