Quoting: Mountain ManThe typical behavior in software is for single click to perform the default action. So, for example, if you want to save a document in a word processor, you simply click the save icon; therefore, logically, a single click should open that same document if you're working in a file browser.

Quoting: Mountain ManSingle click to open is the right way as far as I'm concerned. It just makes the most sense when you consider that the interface in every other piece of software you use on a computer only requires single clicks, so why should the desktop be the sole exception?

Quoting: bingus

Quoting: Mountain ManSingle click to open is the right way as far as I'm concerned. It just makes the most sense when you consider that the interface in every other piece of software you use on a computer only requires single clicks, so why should the desktop be the sole exception?

Because of Windows. I grew up on Windows, and first experienced single click in KDE when trying to select a file. I thought my mouse button was super sensitive or something.

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: jeisom

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: jeisomWhy are there comments about vendor lock-in. This should work just fine on an RDNA2 or newer gpus, if be a bit slower. RT is part of the vulkan standard afterall.

The problem is DLSS. I much prefer an open source standard like AMD FSR whenever I can:

"DLSS 3 is exclusive to Nvidia's “Ada Lovelace” RTX 40-series graphics cards"

Thus, vendor lock-in. Keep in mind that much of that new stuff about RTX is tied to DLSS 3.5.

The developers is welcome to implement both FSR and DLSS and DLSS isn’t required for the RT. It just looks better upscaled than with FSR. NVidia claims they don’t limit that. AMD on the other hand... DLSS3 only added frame generation. If NVidia implemented DLSS across platforms it would look alot like XESS. Looks good on 1 platform and so-so on everything else. Then they’d get shit for “degrading” it on competing platforms. Maybe FSR3 will look better than FSR2 and still work everywhere. We will see.

AMD FSR runs everywhere and is open source. No need for an ultra expensive RTX-4000 gpu. That's my point. DLSS 3 is limited to the tensor cores on these Nvidia GPU (vendor lock-in). Not AMD FSR that goes as far back as the RX 500 series and works with Intel and Nvidia too. I use it on my GTX980m laptop, atm. Yes, you may use RTX with AMD FSR 2 or DLSS 2 on other GPUs (including RTX 3000 and older), but performances will tank. All of what this article is about will be moot. Have you tried Portal RTX on such hardware? It sucks! Even on GeForce Now. So yeah, my point stand. Not going to pay for that. I have a founders edition of GeForce Now for 60$/year (I own an Nvidia Shield). I'm going to keep it and when Nvidia will update it's servers to RTX 4060 (actually RTX 3060), I'll benefit from it, on my Steam Deck.

Anyway, for my part, RTX is no game changer. It helps create awesome still frames in optimal conditions, but while driving, running and being shot at, in the likes of CP2077, these optimal conditions are rarely met. I seldom stop a game to wonder about the RTX thing... In fact I'm always wondering if there is that much of a difference. We were good without it. There was other ways of getting awesome lighting effects that didn't drain the GPUs that much. When all considered, not enough added value, imo.

I've always assumed the appeal of RTX was mostly on the developer side. Presumably it's simpler--rather than come up with various tricks to get the lighting to look good, probably even tweak them scene by scene, you just define the light sources and the surfaces (which you would be doing anyway I think) and it happens. Of course so far that's irrelevant because as far as I know there are no ray-tracing only games, and just adding an option can't make anything simpler.

The only 100% raytraced games (not even sure) I know of are Quake RTX and Portal RTX... 25 and 20 years old games on which they patched RTX. Like I said, performances are meeh, at best if you don't own an RTX 4000 gpu. No gpu can handle 100% RTX on any modern AA or AAA games. No wonder why they used old titles as RTX demos... Caviar on Kraft Dinner! Why not Nethack RTX?! :grin:

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slaapliedjeI'm on the side with 'needs numpad', there are older games that absolutely require the numpad (I'm talking games like Dungeon Master mostly).

That reminds me. Are there, like, standalone numpads? Seems like with all the people loving their very different setups that would be a thing.

Yes, dozens [External Link].

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: GroganThere's no way they'd have chosen that mickey mouse operating system on its own merits. DOS (well, CP/M at the time) was utter garbage, it was sold for a song

CP/M wasn't garbage (http://www.digitalresearch.biz/CPM.HTM); it was doing very well at the time (all the beefier micros capable of doing any sort of serious work had a port of it; it was a serious breakthrough in making micros useful for office work. Even the C64 got a cartridge extension eventually). Digital Research & Gary Kildall almost made the deal with IBM; as to why it fell through, there are many legends -- though I wouldn't rule out secret MS interference.

MS then paid a small company in Seattle to put together a shitty clone of CP/M; I believe they had some sort of distribution agreement with Digital Research; so essentially they breached whatever agreement was in place, & then plagiarized the software into DOS. Then they convinced (?!) IBM to license it per machine -- a trick that Bill Gates had tried on Commodore earlier w/ respect to BASIC, only to get rejected by Commodore's founder & then-CEO Jack Tramiel. Tramiel told Gates, "I'm already married."

Ha!
Wasn't it called "QDOS" for "Quick and Dirty OS"?

Quoting: GroganThere's no way they'd have chosen that mickey mouse operating system on its own merits. DOS (well, CP/M at the time) was utter garbage, it was sold for a song