You make some great points. I don't think I would go as far as to say people don't care about graphic fidelity, but I do agree graphics play less of a role in sales than many think. To be honest, I have to wonder if XBox would have competed with PS2 on a much higher level had they been released closer together. I think part of the reason the XBox was able to build a loyal group of fans was, and indeed the reason people bought an XBox in the first place, was for the technology. It seemed people loved the ability to save games without memory cards, the impressive graphics, etc.
I agree with the marketing argument, and your point that franchises alone can keep a console afloat (a point well demonstrated by the GameCube). That being said, I'm relatively certain that if developers start taking advantage of the huge space afforded by blu-ray, and the content of these games starts exceeding capacity offered on discs for the 360, and content doesn't suffer at the expense of length, graphics, etc., people will gravitate towards the PS3 for those reasons, just as some did towards the XBox for its better load times, etc.
Sorry for the run-on sentence, its been a long day. Your thoughts?
I honestly don't know if it will be a problem. My guess is that in the next two to four years, the PS3 will leave the 360 behind in terms of overall quality. If we're talking the seven year life-cycle Microsoft might be striving for, I'm guessing the investment Sony put into the PS3 will almost certainly pay off, and the PS3 will far surpass the 360. From my understanding, the Cell processor isn't nearly as difficult to program for as many on Slashdot would have us believe. I could be wrong though, as evidenced by the PS2 competing so effectively against XBox.
I love the idea of a console lifespan being six to eight years. As we saw with the PS2, while it wasn't the most powerful towards the end of it's life-cycle (which hasn't yet ended), developers had learned how to code for the system so well after five or six years, games often looked and loaded comparably to the more powerful systems. Devil May Cry 3 is a great example of this, with its impressive graphics and negligible load times.
That being said, I have to wonder if Microsoft isn't ceding an advantage to Sony with this policy. While games designed for the 360 still look comparable (and in many cases, better than) the same games on PS3, the PS3 is undoubtedly the more powerful machine. Couple that with the greater capacity of blu-ray discs, and I'm forced to wonder whether the PS3's extra technologies give it significant advantages in such a long run.
Even if one concedes the Cell processor is difficult to program for, its clearly not impossible to do so. If vendors continue producing games for the PS3 (and if we're having a realistic argument, its safe to say they will do so, even if not exclusively), they will become more and more familiar with the nuances of programming over time. As this happens, the greater resources on the PS3 will shine through more and more. After four or five years, its entirely possible we could see significant differences in game-play and graphics on PS3 games, opposed to 360 games.
Next up, Google et al 'voluntary censorship'? Maybe...but Google has, to date, been careful to limit opportunities they give others to criticize them. China was one thing, as potential for profit there is so enormous they were willing to take some flak. It seems to me Russia doesn't offer nearly the same risk-for-reward potential, and Google may not be willing (yet) to expose themselves as the profit seeking, soulless corporation they are (ha ha). They're still trying to pass themselves off as "do no evil".
That being said, if they do continue to offer up "voluntary censorship" in countries such as Russia, doing so will serve as a window into their global ambitions. Not that I necessarily blame them...profit is profit, and they are a publicly traded company.
I would be curious to learn how many Russian executives companies like Google are hiring these days.
From what I've read, that is true for the 40 GB version only. The 80 GB version supposedly does feature the same backwards compatibility as recent versions, which I believe is through emulation, and not additional hardware. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can find an article confirming this.
Oh wow, gee, thanks for pointing that out. I forgot he was acting. Reference the trailing off periods after my comment. There are ways to point out the obvious without regressing to sarcasm, by the way.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the arcade version for NES. Those old two dimensional side-scrollers were great, and there's really something to be said for the simplicity.
Oh, and while we're at it, bring back the Konami Code.
Re:Any reason to not get a Mac Book Pro?
on
Replacing a Thinkpad?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't take this as trolling against Mac, but in my experience, they're nowhere near as durable as a ThinkPad. For example, my primary home laptop is an old ThinkPad A31, which is over five years old. It lasted me throughout college, and survived numerous drops, liquid spills into the keyboard, hits, etc. It still runs better than most of my friends and colleagues brand new laptops.
By comparison, my little brother brought his brand new MacBook Pro to school with him last year, and after his first semester, the keyboard had completely died from a beer spill. Now, while this is obviously a stupid move on his part, that's not the point. My ThinkPad stood up to numerous beer spills, and kept on ticking. From what he told me, Apple wanted $1,400.00 to fix his computer (I never verified this myself, but he insists its true). Instead, I had him order a new keyboard online for $75.00, and after 45 minutes of work (my first time taking apart a Mac laptop, cut me some slack -- and yes, they are impressively designed), I had it fixed for him.
Anyways, this is one example of a major difference in durability between a MacBook Pro (a great computer, in its own right), and a ThinkPad. At least, an old ThinkPad. I'm not sure if the new ones are built as well.
The other kicker, for me at least, is the lack of a TrackPoint. I personally can't stant touch pads. That alone is a difference maker right there.
Boeing, we should be relieved to know, has tested the fuselage by dropping a section of it... from 15 feet up. From the Seattle Times:
The Seattle Times reviewed the program transcript and also the letter to the FAA. In the letter, Weldon alleges: The recently conducted crashworthiness tests -- in which Boeing dropped partial fuselage sections from a height of about 15 feet at a test site in Mesa, Ariz. -- are inadequate and do not match the stringency of comparable tests done on a 737 fuselage section in 2000. Then goes on to say:
Boeing's Gunter denied the specifics in Weldon's Dreamliner critique.
"We have to demonstrate [to the FAA] comparable crashworthiness to today's airplanes," she said. "We are doing that."
The recently completed crash tests were successful but are only the beginning of a process that relies on computer modeling to cover every possible crash scenario, she said. Important distinction to make, no?
How is this an example of "troll"ing? If this were written about Microsoft, it would probably be modded as "insightful".
The users on Slashdot complaining about an unfair bias from Apple fanatics...they're not wrong. I sincerely hope somebody will metamoderate the parent post.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This all started with somebody saying they didn't see the moral difference between throwing out ads in a paper, and blocking ads on the internet. I guess we abide by different morals, and you side with the parent poster. Morally, I see a huge difference between the two, because I recognize that without revenue, these outlets we choose to view would cease to exist. Since I enjoy having unique content brought to me at the time and expense of others, I feel there is a moral difference between potentially stealing profit from online media sources by refusing to view their ads, and by throwing out ads in the Sunday paper, which has no consequence for the newspaper. I think that's a pretty realistic argument. You say profit is irrelevant - to you, yes...until everyone adopts your attitude, blocks ads, and content not driven by companies obligated by commercial pressures ceases to exist. Professional outlets would just become a PR piece. Don't like that idea very much.
Oh, and I should clarify the above comment I made, because I didn't articulate the point well:
If we're dealing in reality, consumers should recognize this. That does not, however, mean they should view ads. Anyways, this profit is the difference between throwing out the ads in a newspaper and blocking the ads on a website. I should have said "consumers should recognize this - that does not, however, mean they should be subjected to obtrusive, flash style ads."
You said "At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it." That suggest that you feel it is important, or at least relevant, that someone garner some revenue. Why else would you mention it? I mentioned it because it is an indisputable fact (in most cases). It is relevant to the discussion because someone IS garnering revenue. Since someone is garnering revenue, that is the difference to this point:
I fail to see how using Firefox to ignore the ad banners and such is morally any different than throwing out the advertising supplements to the newspaper without glancing at the ads therein. Morally, it is different because newspapers still profit, and (potentially, though in most cases not) can continue to function, without ad revenue. Morally, you can rest assured that since you paid for the paper, you shouldn't be forced to view ads imposed on you by the paper. Is there an implied contract between the publisher and the consumer to view the ads? Perhaps, but that is irrelevant - profit in this case is made regardless. And yes, profit is important. If we're dealing in reality, consumers should recognize this. That does not, however, mean they should view ads. Anyways, this profit is the difference between throwing out the ads in a newspaper and blocking the ads on a website.
That being said, I actually like looking through some of the ads in the Sunday morning papers. I'm generally curious to see what products are going for at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. Do you ever do that?
And, just to clarify, I can't stand obtrusive ads on the internet either.
From parent post:
I fail to see how using Firefox to ignore the ad banners and such is morally any different than throwing out the advertising supplements to the newspaper without glancing at the ads therein.
Its important you view my comment in this context, which was clear. It was meant as a response to the parent comment, and was as relevant to the "topic" as any.
We, as consumers, are not responsible for ensuring that a particular business model is viable or profitable. Whether or not someone is garnering some revenue is completely irrelevent to this discussion.
Please feel free to point out where, exactly, I made such a claim. I think you'll have trouble arguing I said the consumer has any responsibility to ensure financial success. And I made no reference to an "implied contract". Simply pointing to the direct correlation between profit and buying a newspaper, and the discrepancy in that regard to online media.
People do get paid, in many cases, even when you don't click on an ad. There are many models for online advertising.
Another side to this nobody seems to be mentioning is that, in some cases, believe it or not, advertisers aren't necessarily trying to sell you something at the moment you see the ad. In some cases, they are merely trying to build their brand by getting the name of their company or their new product out there. Their logic for this is that if you start seeing it, perhaps it will start building a connection in your mind for the next time you decide you're interested in buying whatever service said product offers. Another side to it -- when you see a company has been advertising for some length of time, it builds a sort of familiarity with the company. It builds a sense of legitimacy.
Did you purchase the newspaper? Because chances are you didn't purchase the right to view the website. At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it...most websites cannot make the same claim.
Wish I could mod this up. As somebody who just graduate from college, and who has a number a friends who have also graduated over the last few years, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I remember around a year or so ago, I had a friend who moved down to Florida and started a job after graduating from Lehigh. His words were, almost exactly "your political beliefs really do change after you graduate. I was pretty liberal in college, but it didn't take long after leaving to start get more republican (I assumed he meant 'conservative')"...and such, don't remember how the rest went. This has been a pretty common theme among friends I've had these kinds of conversations with. While I don't submit this as representative of the general population, I can honestly say I haven't met anyone who got more liberal after graduating from college. Not fiscally, anyways.
That is an interesting perspective. I'm curious, if you don't mind, what age group you fall into?
I personally fall into the 20-25 years group. I graduated in May, and began my first job a little over a month ago. I was honestly a bit surprised to read your post, as nobody has ever said to me "give me your MSN". In fact, I have never heard anyone say that at all.
For me, my peers, and my coworkers, the dominant application is AIM, hands down. Yahoo! also has a decent following. I actually don't know anyone who uses MSN Messenger, or if they do use it, I'm unaware.
Any light you can shed on those you know using MSN Messenger?
I realize Microsoft is engaged in many fields other than operating systems...but unless I'm mistaken (entirely possible, please point out if so), they're not really the 800 lb gorilla anywhere else. I guess the case could be made for IE, but since there are so many free, better (arguable to some, not to me) browsers out there, which are gaining market share, they can't be attacked for that.
Shouldn't more oversight be given to Google? I mean, if predictions (made by some) are true that in a few years OS's won't have nearly the importance they once had, Windows will become more irrelevant. Google, among others, will have much more control over the free flow of information than Microsoft...I give up, its Friday, and a long weekend awaits. I'm not even going to try and fix this ridiculous post.
I wonder...is Steve Jobs running at&t wireless now too? You can't help but admire how far his reach has expanded, especially given the relatively short time it has taken. Assuming, of course, he had anything to do with this. But I wouldn't be surprised if he flat out told them to cripple the Blackberry. I wonder if GPS capabilities will make a miraculous comeback after iPhone 2.0...
Are you honestly proposing that both sides of the argument are given equal attention in the mainstream press?
If there were a 90% consensus that global warming (and by global warming, I mean global warming as the theory of the warming resulting exclusively, or almost exclusively, by human behavior) were true, and only 10% of scientists challenged this belief, or remained uncertain, than would 10% of coverage for dissenting opinion be appropriate? Because despite what we read, it seems more than 10% of scientists either disagree entirely, or at best, remain unconvinced. And while both sides are presented with similar frequency on Slashdot, that doesn't carry over everywhere else.
In regards to your comment that
"Global warming is happening at an increased rate that is only explainable by human activity.
NOTHING else to date explains it. Nothing.
I would point to some interesting theories being proposed which point towards solar activity playing a large role in climate change. You asked if the parent of the thread had "read any papers" on the subject...I would invite you to look at some which challenge your valued beliefs. In the spirit of science.
Aren't Toshiba and IBM equally responsible for development and distribution of the cell processor?
Does this lawsuit sound really, really absurd to anyone else? It doesn't sound like the plaintiff specified how the thing was going to be built, simply that something along the lines of what the Cell Processor does would be built.
Who knows? Maybe they read Slashdot, and figured now would be the perfect time to jump on the f*ck Sony bandwagon? Ha ha.
Slashdot Mirror
You make some great points. I don't think I would go as far as to say people don't care about graphic fidelity, but I do agree graphics play less of a role in sales than many think. To be honest, I have to wonder if XBox would have competed with PS2 on a much higher level had they been released closer together. I think part of the reason the XBox was able to build a loyal group of fans was, and indeed the reason people bought an XBox in the first place, was for the technology. It seemed people loved the ability to save games without memory cards, the impressive graphics, etc.
I agree with the marketing argument, and your point that franchises alone can keep a console afloat (a point well demonstrated by the GameCube). That being said, I'm relatively certain that if developers start taking advantage of the huge space afforded by blu-ray, and the content of these games starts exceeding capacity offered on discs for the 360, and content doesn't suffer at the expense of length, graphics, etc., people will gravitate towards the PS3 for those reasons, just as some did towards the XBox for its better load times, etc.
Sorry for the run-on sentence, its been a long day. Your thoughts?
I honestly don't know if it will be a problem. My guess is that in the next two to four years, the PS3 will leave the 360 behind in terms of overall quality. If we're talking the seven year life-cycle Microsoft might be striving for, I'm guessing the investment Sony put into the PS3 will almost certainly pay off, and the PS3 will far surpass the 360. From my understanding, the Cell processor isn't nearly as difficult to program for as many on Slashdot would have us believe. I could be wrong though, as evidenced by the PS2 competing so effectively against XBox.
What do you think?
I love the idea of a console lifespan being six to eight years. As we saw with the PS2, while it wasn't the most powerful towards the end of it's life-cycle (which hasn't yet ended), developers had learned how to code for the system so well after five or six years, games often looked and loaded comparably to the more powerful systems. Devil May Cry 3 is a great example of this, with its impressive graphics and negligible load times.
That being said, I have to wonder if Microsoft isn't ceding an advantage to Sony with this policy. While games designed for the 360 still look comparable (and in many cases, better than) the same games on PS3, the PS3 is undoubtedly the more powerful machine. Couple that with the greater capacity of blu-ray discs, and I'm forced to wonder whether the PS3's extra technologies give it significant advantages in such a long run.
Even if one concedes the Cell processor is difficult to program for, its clearly not impossible to do so. If vendors continue producing games for the PS3 (and if we're having a realistic argument, its safe to say they will do so, even if not exclusively), they will become more and more familiar with the nuances of programming over time. As this happens, the greater resources on the PS3 will shine through more and more. After four or five years, its entirely possible we could see significant differences in game-play and graphics on PS3 games, opposed to 360 games.
That being said, if they do continue to offer up "voluntary censorship" in countries such as Russia, doing so will serve as a window into their global ambitions. Not that I necessarily blame them...profit is profit, and they are a publicly traded company.
I would be curious to learn how many Russian executives companies like Google are hiring these days.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_hi_te/sony_playstation
And here's what will probably be the next article on Slashdot:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_hi_te/sony_playstation
From what I've read, that is true for the 40 GB version only. The 80 GB version supposedly does feature the same backwards compatibility as recent versions, which I believe is through emulation, and not additional hardware. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can find an article confirming this.
Oh wow, gee, thanks for pointing that out. I forgot he was acting. Reference the trailing off periods after my comment. There are ways to point out the obvious without regressing to sarcasm, by the way.
I read somewhere that James Doohan actually faked his accent while playing "Scotty"...
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the arcade version for NES. Those old two dimensional side-scrollers were great, and there's really something to be said for the simplicity.
Oh, and while we're at it, bring back the Konami Code.
You, my friend, are exactly right.
Don't take this as trolling against Mac, but in my experience, they're nowhere near as durable as a ThinkPad. For example, my primary home laptop is an old ThinkPad A31, which is over five years old. It lasted me throughout college, and survived numerous drops, liquid spills into the keyboard, hits, etc. It still runs better than most of my friends and colleagues brand new laptops.
By comparison, my little brother brought his brand new MacBook Pro to school with him last year, and after his first semester, the keyboard had completely died from a beer spill. Now, while this is obviously a stupid move on his part, that's not the point. My ThinkPad stood up to numerous beer spills, and kept on ticking. From what he told me, Apple wanted $1,400.00 to fix his computer (I never verified this myself, but he insists its true). Instead, I had him order a new keyboard online for $75.00, and after 45 minutes of work (my first time taking apart a Mac laptop, cut me some slack -- and yes, they are impressively designed), I had it fixed for him.
Anyways, this is one example of a major difference in durability between a MacBook Pro (a great computer, in its own right), and a ThinkPad. At least, an old ThinkPad. I'm not sure if the new ones are built as well.
The other kicker, for me at least, is the lack of a TrackPoint. I personally can't stant touch pads. That alone is a difference maker right there.
The recently conducted crashworthiness tests -- in which Boeing dropped partial fuselage sections from a height of about 15 feet at a test site in Mesa, Ariz. -- are inadequate and do not match the stringency of comparable tests done on a 737 fuselage section in 2000. Then goes on to say: Boeing's Gunter denied the specifics in Weldon's Dreamliner critique.
"We have to demonstrate [to the FAA] comparable crashworthiness to today's airplanes," she said. "We are doing that."
The recently completed crash tests were successful but are only the beginning of a process that relies on computer modeling to cover every possible crash scenario, she said. Important distinction to make, no?
Article citation: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
How is this an example of "troll"ing? If this were written about Microsoft, it would probably be modded as "insightful".
The users on Slashdot complaining about an unfair bias from Apple fanatics...they're not wrong. I sincerely hope somebody will metamoderate the parent post.
Oh, and I should clarify the above comment I made, because I didn't articulate the point well: If we're dealing in reality, consumers should recognize this. That does not, however, mean they should view ads. Anyways, this profit is the difference between throwing out the ads in a newspaper and blocking the ads on a website. I should have said "consumers should recognize this - that does not, however, mean they should be subjected to obtrusive, flash style ads."
That being said, I actually like looking through some of the ads in the Sunday morning papers. I'm generally curious to see what products are going for at places like Best Buy and Circuit City. Do you ever do that?
And, just to clarify, I can't stand obtrusive ads on the internet either.
From parent post: I fail to see how using Firefox to ignore the ad banners and such is morally any different than throwing out the advertising supplements to the newspaper without glancing at the ads therein.
Its important you view my comment in this context, which was clear. It was meant as a response to the parent comment, and was as relevant to the "topic" as any. We, as consumers, are not responsible for ensuring that a particular business model is viable or profitable. Whether or not someone is garnering some revenue is completely irrelevent to this discussion.
Please feel free to point out where, exactly, I made such a claim. I think you'll have trouble arguing I said the consumer has any responsibility to ensure financial success. And I made no reference to an "implied contract". Simply pointing to the direct correlation between profit and buying a newspaper, and the discrepancy in that regard to online media.
People do get paid, in many cases, even when you don't click on an ad. There are many models for online advertising.
Another side to this nobody seems to be mentioning is that, in some cases, believe it or not, advertisers aren't necessarily trying to sell you something at the moment you see the ad. In some cases, they are merely trying to build their brand by getting the name of their company or their new product out there. Their logic for this is that if you start seeing it, perhaps it will start building a connection in your mind for the next time you decide you're interested in buying whatever service said product offers. Another side to it -- when you see a company has been advertising for some length of time, it builds a sort of familiarity with the company. It builds a sense of legitimacy.
Again, just playing devil's advocate here people.
Did you purchase the newspaper? Because chances are you didn't purchase the right to view the website. At the very least, the newspaper is garnering some revenue by you buying it...most websites cannot make the same claim.
Just playing Devil's advocate here.
Wish I could mod this up. As somebody who just graduate from college, and who has a number a friends who have also graduated over the last few years, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I remember around a year or so ago, I had a friend who moved down to Florida and started a job after graduating from Lehigh. His words were, almost exactly "your political beliefs really do change after you graduate. I was pretty liberal in college, but it didn't take long after leaving to start get more republican (I assumed he meant 'conservative')"...and such, don't remember how the rest went. This has been a pretty common theme among friends I've had these kinds of conversations with. While I don't submit this as representative of the general population, I can honestly say I haven't met anyone who got more liberal after graduating from college. Not fiscally, anyways.
That is an interesting perspective. I'm curious, if you don't mind, what age group you fall into?
I personally fall into the 20-25 years group. I graduated in May, and began my first job a little over a month ago. I was honestly a bit surprised to read your post, as nobody has ever said to me "give me your MSN". In fact, I have never heard anyone say that at all.
For me, my peers, and my coworkers, the dominant application is AIM, hands down. Yahoo! also has a decent following. I actually don't know anyone who uses MSN Messenger, or if they do use it, I'm unaware.
Any light you can shed on those you know using MSN Messenger?
I know, I know. They're nice programs, too. Do you think they'll move online any time soon?
I realize Microsoft is engaged in many fields other than operating systems...but unless I'm mistaken (entirely possible, please point out if so), they're not really the 800 lb gorilla anywhere else. I guess the case could be made for IE, but since there are so many free, better (arguable to some, not to me) browsers out there, which are gaining market share, they can't be attacked for that.
.Terminate ranting pointless post.
Shouldn't more oversight be given to Google? I mean, if predictions (made by some) are true that in a few years OS's won't have nearly the importance they once had, Windows will become more irrelevant. Google, among others, will have much more control over the free flow of information than Microsoft...I give up, its Friday, and a long weekend awaits. I'm not even going to try and fix this ridiculous post.
I wonder...is Steve Jobs running at&t wireless now too? You can't help but admire how far his reach has expanded, especially given the relatively short time it has taken. Assuming, of course, he had anything to do with this. But I wouldn't be surprised if he flat out told them to cripple the Blackberry. I wonder if GPS capabilities will make a miraculous comeback after iPhone 2.0...
If there were a 90% consensus that global warming (and by global warming, I mean global warming as the theory of the warming resulting exclusively, or almost exclusively, by human behavior) were true, and only 10% of scientists challenged this belief, or remained uncertain, than would 10% of coverage for dissenting opinion be appropriate? Because despite what we read, it seems more than 10% of scientists either disagree entirely, or at best, remain unconvinced. And while both sides are presented with similar frequency on Slashdot, that doesn't carry over everywhere else.
In regards to your comment that
"Global warming is happening at an increased rate that is only explainable by human activity.
NOTHING else to date explains it. Nothing.
I would point to some interesting theories being proposed which point towards solar activity playing a large role in climate change. You asked if the parent of the thread had "read any papers" on the subject...I would invite you to look at some which challenge your valued beliefs. In the spirit of science.
Aren't Toshiba and IBM equally responsible for development and distribution of the cell processor?
Does this lawsuit sound really, really absurd to anyone else? It doesn't sound like the plaintiff specified how the thing was going to be built, simply that something along the lines of what the Cell Processor does would be built.
Who knows? Maybe they read Slashdot, and figured now would be the perfect time to jump on the f*ck Sony bandwagon? Ha ha.