Полигон-2

anthony написал:

[q]

Теоретикам как всегда виднее

[/q]

Не согласны? Тесты в студию.

Если обратиться к Redhill Hardware Guide:

[q]

Celeron 266
Probably the worst performing CPU of all time. This was an inexcusably bad product. Most of history's out-and-out duds have some sort of excuse to fall back on: there were unforseen development delays (K5), or the design didn't scale as expected (late model M-II), or it was a brave experiment that didn't work the way the designers thought it would (Itanium), or the company didn't have the resources to finish the project properly (Winchip II), or it was simply a cheap little part that was never intended to be a serious contender in the mainstream market (486SLC, VIA C3). The Celeron 266 had none of these excuses.
Intel had the expertise, the production facilities, and the financial backing to make the Celeron a winner. Intel even had two different ready-made designs to base it on (the Pentium MMX and the Pentium II — at that time, the fastest X86 chip on the planet — either one of which could easily have been adapted to the role). Alas, with the original Celeron, Intel didn't fail to make a worthy part, the company deliberately chose to make a dud part in the belief that the buying public wouldn't know the difference.
Intel have had much more widely publicised duds than the Celeron 266 — the Pentium floating-point bug, the recall of the Pentium-III 1133, the i820 chipset fiasco — but this was the firm's lowest-ever ebb.
Technically the Celeron was a stock-standard Pentium II with no secondary cache at all. It came in the form of a massive and not inexpensive SEC cartridge which was mostly empty space, required a substantially more expensive motherboard than competing chips, was touted as an all-new and rather wonderful device with an outstanding 266MHz clock speed, and couldn't even match the product it replaced in Intel's line-up.
In reality, it was an obvious and very cynical attempt to exploit the Amstrad Factor — the vulnerability of naive consumers to slow, over-priced hardware with an impressive name and number but very poor performance. Computer buyers have been persuaded to lay down their wallets on all sorts of dubious propositions over the years, but there are limits to all things, and the Celeron was beyond the pale. It sold poorly — so poorly that within a few months of its introduction the unthinkable had happened: Intel were no longer the market leader in the entry-level and mid-range segments. Smaller specialist PC suppliers found the Celeron very hard to move, and even the supermarket brands (notably Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Packard Bell) soon felt obliged to go with faster, cheaper CPUs from AMD or Cyrix.

We bought just one of them. We had seen the dreadful reviews and found it difficult to credit that mighty Intel would make a part as poor as everyone was saying. So we ordered one to try it for ourselves — and it was not as bad as the reviews were saying: it was worse! Despite offering an ever-greater discount on it just to move the damn thing out of the showroom, only a few buyers had any interest, and those few would eventually say to us something like: 'So you recommend the Celeron system?' And we would sigh and reluctantly say, 'Not really. We are offering it way below cost, so it's a bargain, but that 6x86MX-200 over there is miles faster and will last longer before you have to upgrade again.'
After three or four months of trying to sell the Celeron we admitted defeat and gave it to a family member to replace his old 5x86-100. In his hands it lasted only a few months before he swapped it with his sister for a bicycle, and she used it off and on for another year or so before losing interest in computers and parking it in a cupboard. As far as we know, it is still there.
In its favour, the Celeron had good floating-point performance and made a reasonable games platform if you overclocked it, but it was priced significantly higher than much faster chips from AMD, Cyrix, IBM and even Intel itself. The vastly more capable Celeron-A with a small amount of L2 cache hit the market a few months later but this one was never anything else but sucker bait. You saw it at Harvey's.

[/q]

http://redhill.net.au/c/c-9.html

easyjohn написал:

[q]

Разница Москва/Питер и регионы тогда была большая.

[/q]

в регионе я в 94м сидел на 486м, а в 96м на пне в интернете так что не преувеличивай
не на юге правда...

hoorma, easyjohn, Rio444, Bobo, anthony, читать ваши опусы исключительно интересно. Вы успели нафлудить, наоффтопить, обсудить ценники 90-хгодов вместе с их географией, но так никто и не коснулся вопроса:
фактически на которой аппаратуре писалась музыкальная часть компьютерной игры, и под которую аппаратуру затем портирована?
Не секрет, что 80% игровой музыки писалось под карты Roland-а и портировалось под SB+клоны, под гусей, под всякие WSS/DSS/ковоксы.
А как распределились остальные 20%?
Возможно-ли составить список игр, для которых roland был всего-лишь одним из портов, а отнюдь не исходником?
Вообще, составить список "нетрадиционных" игр, в соответствии с основными для них звукартами.

Fe-Restorator написал:

[q]

Не секрет, что 80% игровой музыки писалось под карты Roland-а

[/q]

Ага, особенно в диапазоне 82-92 годы, когда scc еще не существовало, а lapc стоил запредельных денег.
Не выдумывай. Игр под бластер/адлиб больше всего.

Fe-Restorator написал:

[q]

И это точно не бластеры.

[/q]

Роланды?

да много чего есть для создания музыки... спроси у звукорежиссеров