>>4
I would be surprised if he has a wife. Watching the other two videos he's uploaded, it's clear this man has some mental issues with visions of religious grandiosity.
There's a song, and his lyrics are about how he doesn't want god to leave him and how he got kicked out of his parent's basement and his angst from being bullied as a kid.
Fuck, first he spams Reddit with it then does it to /prog/? Fuck this shit.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-13 10:25
>>10 Different? Try backward. It has some novel ideas here and there but half the stances that are taken set the computer back to the DOS age. The thing feels like one giant compiler and the graphics will inherently amount to nothing due to their nature. Realistic art isn't calculated because real life isn't calculated in fact its very organic. Or at least so deeply calculated that our methods cant gather the full scope. But stepping back from all we can do is not the answer. Its just another way of getting by.
At most your OS is another analogous IBM OS waiting to get ripped by a Bill Gates type and exploited to their own means.
I like how people picking on him sound normal at first, then betray the fact that they are in fact even crazier.
Non-GPU graphics are too slow for high resolutions, so LoseThos will always be 640x480x 16 color.
Counter-Strike ran at well over 30fps in software mode at 1024x768x16bit in my P4 from 2002. A full-quality software rasterizer (which does 32-bit color and bilinear texture filtering) is capable of running Quake3 at over 60fps at 1024x768 on an i7.
That flight simulator demo he shown... at 640x480x4bpp, it should probably run at over 1000fps on his i7. Quake1's software renderer, if multithreaded, would exceed that (I'm pretty sure it averaged less than 40 cycles per pixel on PPro, and that's without MMX, SSE, or anything of the sort; and manually scheduled for Pentium1)