Did you read my post before replying? Allow me to emphasize a few things this time...
My complaint is that, to me, most console games have NO REPLAY VALUE . Yeah, a lot of them are good games, but they don't last very long.
And you seem to have skipped the part where I talked about the expenses. I found that a console was MORE EXPENSIVE for me because the games don't last as long. So I was spending $100-$150 per month on console games to keep myself busy. With a PC the games last long enough that I'll go a few months without buying one. You know how much a video card good enough to play any of the latest games for the next 6 months costs? $150. I was dropping twice that in 3 months on console games.
And yeah, ATi cards have trouble with drivers, but it's just a matter of keeping them updated; it's not that bad. Although if you don't want to deal with it, you should be using an nVidia card instead of ATi.
As I said before, this only applies to people who do a lot of gaming. With casual gamers who just play a couple hours a week, a console is a better way to spend their money. For people who love gaming, a Windows PC is really the only choice.
If it wasn't designed with the Xbox in mind... that's very, very sad.
I always cut it some slack for it's poor interface on the PC, it was because they wanted to keep it simple for the Xbox.
If you consider all the game's limitations and shortcomings I think you'll come to the same conclusion. Hot-topics along the left side of the conversation window so they're easy to select with a controller. Only two 'hot buttons' for weapon and spell which you cycle through. And you must be in the correct mode to use either one. That's something you do when you have a limited amount of buttons. And the combat system... come on, how intuitive is it to run backwards and click on attack to do a thrust maneuver? On the Xbox it's much easier with a controller since you just tap down and attack.
Who says you're limited to only one platform? Use Windows for games, Linux for servers, and OS X for anything else.
I tried the one platform + consoles theory for a couple years... it didn't work for me. It actually ended up being much more expensive.
Maybe if consoles start using a keyboard and mouse for interface (I can't stand playing a FPS with a controller) and allow you to downloads mods and/or extentions then I'd be all for consoles as my primary platform for gaming.
Right now the RPGs, FPSs, and MMGs are simply a better experience on a computer. They usually have better graphics and almost always have a greater replay value. Morrowind is a great example of this. Made for the Xbox, but the gameplay is so much better on the PC thanks to player-created modules. I couldn't play it for more than a few days on Xbox, but on the PC I've been playing it now for a couple months.
Now the price issue... With consoles I found I was spending $100-$150 per month on games to keep busy. On the other hand, with a PC, I spend $0-$60 per month on games. At that rate, after 6 months I can afford to put together a new computer. And that's not even taking into account the cost of the console and accessories.
But you're buying more games for the console than the PC, so you've got more replay value, right? Well, let's compare the games I've bought in the last year... I've bought 6 PC games + 3 expansions, I'm still playing 4 of the games. On the console? I've bought somewhere between 20-25 and there's maybe 2 or 3 I still enjoy playing occasionally.
I'm sorry, but for any serious gamer, a PC is a much better deal. That said, consoles are worth the price for party games alone--assuming you have a few friends to play with.
But then again, you were talking about a Mac. Do yourself a favor and spend $700 to make a decent game system running Windows.
I'm typing this from my iBook and I love Macs. I loathe Windows for any desktop work and really don't like it for servers. However, as much as I hate it, Windows doesn't suck for gaming. That's all my Windows box does... it never loads the explorer shell.
Sooner or Later (I'm guessing Later), even the cost of doing business with defensive patents and cross-licensing will reach that point that the big guys will push for Patent/Trademark reform, and these sorts of problems will finally go away.
Why would they want to push for reform?
Isn't it just creating a higher barrier to entering the market?
If they own patents and can threaten a lawsuit on any technology developed, they've just eliminated any competition that can't afford a lengthy legal battle.
The costs of doing business would have to become significantly higher because of patents for companies to give up that kind of power. And frankly, I can't imagine the costs ever reaching that point.
I don't think we can count on the corporations lobbying to correct this problem.
It sucks that you can't afford a CD-ROM drive for your Linux/BSD boxes. Or maybe you can't afford a CD-R drive on the box you buy the songs with?
I feel for ya man, the job market is rough these days. But just save up a few bucks and wait for a good sale. Sometimes you can get a decent CD-R drive for $20.
There are Shift, Control, Option, and Command keys which give you 4 types of clicks. Does your keyboard have 4 buttons for each letter?
While I disagree with your point of view now, I did use to think exactly the same thing. However, I bought an iBook recently and also bought a 3-button USB mouse with it because I didn't think I could stand a 1-button mouse. Turns out I only ever bother plugging the mouse in when I'm playing Windows games that were ported to Mac.
That's all assuming you have the time to waste sitting at the computer while it installs.
I know when I do an install I'm usually working on something else and not just sitting at the computer eager to give it a response. This means it can sit for up to 30 minutes just waiting for input while I'm off watching tv or out playing basketball.
With a Linux install you do all the interaction first, then just go back to it once or twice for entering the commands to update.
(Assume we are talking about a sane linux distro and not Gentoo.)
There's absolutely *nothing* that a PS2 or Gamecube can do that an XBox cannot do, period.
My gamecube fits nicely into the small space in my entertainment center next to my Xbox. It also fits in a small backpack. Two things an Xbox couldn't do, period.;)
Also, the Gamecube can boot Mario Sunshine, DoubleDash, Mario Party, Smash Bros, Pikmin, Zelda, Metroid and Viewtiful Joe. When I put those in the Xbox I just get a funny error message.:-/
One thing you may want to keep an eye on is UserLinux.
They're "picking favorites" and only officially supporting one package in each area; such as only Apache for web server, only PostgreSQL for SQL, only Gnome desktop, etc. It's based on Debian running Linux 2.6 so if anyone wants a different package they can grab it from the Debian apt repos and it will work with UserLinux.
Another goal for UserLinux is to work closely--in fact, as a part of--the core Debian team to have more frequent "stable" releases while also increasing the length of support for each release.
The goal is to have (instead of just one) multiple stable versions with security updates and minor patches for a period of 5 years. Ideally we'd see Debian releasing a new stable every year and supporting the previous 4 releases.
At a minimum, UserLinux will have it's own stable branch while maintaining compatibility with Debian.
There should be an install ISO coming soon. However, people are getting things ready right now using Debian-testing (Sarge) with the packages listed here.
And my servers are mission-critical which is why I'd be running stable on them.
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that stable was the only option for a mission-critical server.
I was just pointing out that you aren't expected to be running stable.
I would have no reservations using testing on a production system if stable didn't have the packages I needed. I'd trust Debian testing over the latest version of Red Hat any day of the week.
What it really boils down to for me is that I can't stand to run the ancient code that is in Debian stable. I think it would be a perfectly good server platform if one takes on the management of up to date packages that pertain to the server's role. In no way am I arguing that Debian is not a good platform. I admire it in many ways but I simply prefer other alternatives.
I can understand and respect that. And by posting these rebuttles, I'm not trying to convince you to use Debian instead of BSD. I generally prefer BSD on servers; although I admit lately--since the release of Linux 2.6--I've been seriously considering Linux more often.
I just want to clear up the misconceptions about Debian. I had heard for years about how your choices for Debian were to either use an out of date system or an unstable system and it kept me from giving it a chance for a long time. Now I wish I would have started using it from the beginning.
I run FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Mandrake, Gentoo, Vector, and Debian. The Debian systems are my favorites to admin. They do a good job of taking care of themselves. (Followed closely by FreeBSD)
As I previosly stated, I completely understand and respect your position.
Have you tried it, or are you making an assumtion? Because I used to think the same way, until I installed it.
My experience with problems seems to differ from both of our expectations. If I have any problem I say "I'm using unstable and here's the problem I'm having." I've always received an answer.
I have never once been told "you should be running stable". Perhaps because no one expects stable to be installed on anything except mission-critical machines.
With FreeBSD on the other hand... I have a system running 5.x to test/learn. Any problem I've had with that has been answered with "You should be running 4.x"
So, maybe our prejudice comes from experience with BSD?;)
Say there's two people looking for jobs. Person one says. "I will work for anyone who respects my right to use the skills I learn working for them, in any work I may do later."
Person two says, "I will work for anyone, no matter what the terms are."
"Debian is great for upgrades but the glacier pace of upgrades to the stable release is unacceptable."
Sounds like you used the wrong branch. I'll be the first one to tell you, the naming system for Debian releases sucks. It sounds like the only one safe to run is horribly obsolete; while in reality, all are extremely stable. The only difference is how long it takes to see new software.
Unstable is like running Gentoo. Newest available software is here. Albeit without the bugs, compile waits, and portage-screw-ups. I was a little bewildered coming from Gentoo--not having to fix a minor breakage every week was strange. Especially considering I was running something called "unstable".
Testing is what most people would be happy running. It's up to date, and new software versions are pushed to it after they pass unstable.
Stable is just that. Stable. You're not going to see an upgrade that breaks something or forces you to reconfigure your system. For the most part you should only see security patches and minor upgrades.
Here's an approximate Debian => FreeBSD conversion table stable => RELEASE testing => STABLE unstable => CURRENT
If you want to see software version upgrades, you should probably use testing.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read my post before replying? Allow me to emphasize a few things this time...
My complaint is that, to me, most console games have NO REPLAY VALUE . Yeah, a lot of them are good games, but they don't last very long.
And you seem to have skipped the part where I talked about the expenses. I found that a console was MORE EXPENSIVE for me because the games don't last as long. So I was spending $100-$150 per month on console games to keep myself busy. With a PC the games last long enough that I'll go a few months without buying one. You know how much a video card good enough to play any of the latest games for the next 6 months costs? $150. I was dropping twice that in 3 months on console games.
And yeah, ATi cards have trouble with drivers, but it's just a matter of keeping them updated; it's not that bad. Although if you don't want to deal with it, you should be using an nVidia card instead of ATi.
As I said before, this only applies to people who do a lot of gaming. With casual gamers who just play a couple hours a week, a console is a better way to spend their money. For people who love gaming, a Windows PC is really the only choice.
If it wasn't designed with the Xbox in mind... that's very, very sad.
I always cut it some slack for it's poor interface on the PC, it was because they wanted to keep it simple for the Xbox.
If you consider all the game's limitations and shortcomings I think you'll come to the same conclusion. Hot-topics along the left side of the conversation window so they're easy to select with a controller. Only two 'hot buttons' for weapon and spell which you cycle through. And you must be in the correct mode to use either one. That's something you do when you have a limited amount of buttons. And the combat system... come on, how intuitive is it to run backwards and click on attack to do a thrust maneuver? On the Xbox it's much easier with a controller since you just tap down and attack.
Cygwin really helps make using Windows a tolerable experience.
I recommend changing the shell from explorer.exe to cygwin.bat, then it doesn't even seem much like Windows anymore!
You meant "to a Debian user [running Woody]", right? That is, not a Debian user running Sarge or Sid.
;)
The computers you can run Gentoo on are the types that you would be running Sid on, not Woody.
Who says you're limited to only one platform?
Use Windows for games, Linux for servers, and OS X for anything else.
I tried the one platform + consoles theory for a couple years... it didn't work for me. It actually ended up being much more expensive.
Maybe if consoles start using a keyboard and mouse for interface (I can't stand playing a FPS with a controller) and allow you to downloads mods and/or extentions then I'd be all for consoles as my primary platform for gaming.
Right now the RPGs, FPSs, and MMGs are simply a better experience on a computer. They usually have better graphics and almost always have a greater replay value. Morrowind is a great example of this. Made for the Xbox, but the gameplay is so much better on the PC thanks to player-created modules. I couldn't play it for more than a few days on Xbox, but on the PC I've been playing it now for a couple months.
Now the price issue... With consoles I found I was spending $100-$150 per month on games to keep busy. On the other hand, with a PC, I spend $0-$60 per month on games. At that rate, after 6 months I can afford to put together a new computer. And that's not even taking into account the cost of the console and accessories.
But you're buying more games for the console than the PC, so you've got more replay value, right? Well, let's compare the games I've bought in the last year...
I've bought 6 PC games + 3 expansions, I'm still playing 4 of the games. On the console? I've bought somewhere between 20-25 and there's maybe 2 or 3 I still enjoy playing occasionally.
I'm sorry, but for any serious gamer, a PC is a much better deal. That said, consoles are worth the price for party games alone--assuming you have a few friends to play with.
But then again, you were talking about a Mac. Do yourself a favor and spend $700 to make a decent game system running Windows.
I'm typing this from my iBook and I love Macs.
I loathe Windows for any desktop work and really don't like it for servers. However, as much as I hate it, Windows doesn't suck for gaming. That's all my Windows box does... it never loads the explorer shell.
Sooner or Later (I'm guessing Later), even the cost of doing business with defensive patents and cross-licensing will reach that point that the big guys will push for Patent/Trademark reform, and these sorts of problems will finally go away.
Why would they want to push for reform?
Isn't it just creating a higher barrier to entering the market?
If they own patents and can threaten a lawsuit on any technology developed, they've just eliminated any competition that can't afford a lengthy legal battle.
The costs of doing business would have to become significantly higher because of patents for companies to give up that kind of power. And frankly, I can't imagine the costs ever reaching that point.
I don't think we can count on the corporations lobbying to correct this problem.
News Flash: Debian isn't in it for the money! 8-o
That means they could care less about market-share.
It also means doing whatever it takes to produce a damn fine distro.
There is a reason so many distros are based on Debian.
It sucks that you can't afford a CD-ROM drive for your Linux/BSD boxes. Or maybe you can't afford a CD-R drive on the box you buy the songs with?
I feel for ya man, the job market is rough these days. But just save up a few bucks and wait for a good sale. Sometimes you can get a decent CD-R drive for $20.
Good luck.
StreamRipperX
StreamRipperX Files
And for those who need immediate gratification, a direct link to the DMG
The thing is--with Mac software--you don't need multiple mouse buttons any more than you need multiple letter keys.
Why don't we see anyone shouting for multiple X, C, V, or Z keys because it's too hard to cut, copy, paste and undo the way things are now?
There are Shift, Control, Option, and Command keys which give you 4 types of clicks.
Does your keyboard have 4 buttons for each letter?
While I disagree with your point of view now, I did use to think exactly the same thing.
However, I bought an iBook recently and also bought a 3-button USB mouse with it because I didn't think I could stand a 1-button mouse.
Turns out I only ever bother plugging the mouse in when I'm playing Windows games that were ported to Mac.
Everything else "just works" with the one button.
Imagine if those were stock charts... they'd be firing the board of directors!
Hopefully come November...
That's all assuming you have the time to waste sitting at the computer while it installs.
I know when I do an install I'm usually working on something else and not just sitting at the computer eager to give it a response. This means it can sit for up to 30 minutes just waiting for input while I'm off watching tv or out playing basketball.
With a Linux install you do all the interaction first, then just go back to it once or twice for entering the commands to update.
(Assume we are talking about a sane linux distro and not Gentoo.)
There's absolutely *nothing* that a PS2 or Gamecube can do that an XBox cannot do, period.
;)
:-/
My gamecube fits nicely into the small space in my entertainment center next to my Xbox. It also fits in a small backpack. Two things an Xbox couldn't do, period.
Also, the Gamecube can boot Mario Sunshine, DoubleDash, Mario Party, Smash Bros, Pikmin, Zelda, Metroid and Viewtiful Joe. When I put those in the Xbox I just get a funny error message.
"(remove the spaces that slashdot adds and paste it in your address bar)."
Actually, it will work even with the spaces in there.
Yeah no doubt. ;)
Those green bowls make you FAT!
That's why I stick to the red and beige ones.
One thing you may want to keep an eye on is UserLinux.
They're "picking favorites" and only officially supporting one package in each area; such as only Apache for web server, only PostgreSQL for SQL, only Gnome desktop, etc. It's based on Debian running Linux 2.6 so if anyone wants a different package they can grab it from the Debian apt repos and it will work with UserLinux.
Another goal for UserLinux is to work closely--in fact, as a part of--the core Debian team to have more frequent "stable" releases while also increasing the length of support for each release.
The goal is to have (instead of just one) multiple stable versions with security updates and minor patches for a period of 5 years. Ideally we'd see Debian releasing a new stable every year and supporting the previous 4 releases.
At a minimum, UserLinux will have it's own stable branch while maintaining compatibility with Debian.
There should be an install ISO coming soon. However, people are getting things ready right now using Debian-testing (Sarge) with the packages listed here.
For more information you can check out the unoffical page:
http://userlinux.comptonranch.com/
because I for one am a little pissed about the delay
The person who copied the code wasn't the cause of the delay.
The actual cause of the delay was Valve not being anywhere near finished.
I'm sorry. You're right, I probably wasn't clear enough.
I wasn't trying to imply either was better, I showing how each is "free" in a different way.
The BSD licence focuses on the freedom of the users, the GPL focuses on the freedom to the code.
Believe it or not I generally prefer the BSD licence.
And my servers are mission-critical which is why I'd be running stable on them.
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that stable was the only option for a mission-critical server.
I was just pointing out that you aren't expected to be running stable.
I would have no reservations using testing on a production system if stable didn't have the packages I needed. I'd trust Debian testing over the latest version of Red Hat any day of the week.
What it really boils down to for me is that I can't stand to run the ancient code that is in Debian stable. I think it would be a perfectly good server platform if one takes on the management of up to date packages that pertain to the server's role. In no way am I arguing that Debian is not a good platform. I admire it in many ways but I simply prefer other alternatives.
I can understand and respect that.
And by posting these rebuttles, I'm not trying to convince you to use Debian instead of BSD. I generally prefer BSD on servers; although I admit lately--since the release of Linux 2.6--I've been seriously considering Linux more often.
I just want to clear up the misconceptions about Debian. I had heard for years about how your choices for Debian were to either use an out of date system or an unstable system and it kept me from giving it a chance for a long time. Now I wish I would have started using it from the beginning.
I run FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Mandrake, Gentoo, Vector, and Debian. The Debian systems are my favorites to admin. They do a good job of taking care of themselves. (Followed closely by FreeBSD)
As I previosly stated, I completely understand and respect your position.
Have you tried it, or are you making an assumtion? Because I used to think the same way, until I installed it.
;)
My experience with problems seems to differ from both of our expectations. If I have any problem I say "I'm using unstable and here's the problem I'm having." I've always received an answer.
I have never once been told "you should be running stable". Perhaps because no one expects stable to be installed on anything except mission-critical machines.
With FreeBSD on the other hand... I have a system running 5.x to test/learn. Any problem I've had with that has been answered with "You should be running 4.x"
So, maybe our prejudice comes from experience with BSD?
Think about it this way:
Say there's two people looking for jobs.
Person one says. "I will work for anyone who respects my right to use the skills I learn working for them, in any work I may do later."
Person two says, "I will work for anyone, no matter what the terms are."
Which is more free?
"Debian is great for upgrades but the glacier pace of upgrades to the stable release is unacceptable."
Sounds like you used the wrong branch. I'll be the first one to tell you, the naming system for Debian releases sucks. It sounds like the only one safe to run is horribly obsolete; while in reality, all are extremely stable. The only difference is how long it takes to see new software.
Unstable is like running Gentoo. Newest available software is here. Albeit without the bugs, compile waits, and portage-screw-ups. I was a little bewildered coming from Gentoo--not having to fix a minor breakage every week was strange. Especially considering I was running something called "unstable".
Testing is what most people would be happy running. It's up to date, and new software versions are pushed to it after they pass unstable.
Stable is just that. Stable. You're not going to see an upgrade that breaks something or forces you to reconfigure your system. For the most part you should only see security patches and minor upgrades.
Here's an approximate Debian => FreeBSD conversion table
stable => RELEASE
testing => STABLE
unstable => CURRENT
If you want to see software version upgrades, you should probably use testing.
I was under the impression Gecko was written from scratch.
mp3.com's main draw was that they built communities and social networks of artists, which I don't think there is any replacement for--yet.
Something like GarageBand.com?
This is an honest question. I didn't use MP3.com much, so I don't really know how it compares.