Quit being a cockmunch, Aristotle-Dude, before I stick your ass in a headlock.
First, our workstations aren't custom-built, but they are customized after the fact.
You're failing to see the obvious applications of those of us who need high-end graphical workstations to run things like Maya and 3dsmax. As long as the products we're developing are advancing on the bleeding edge of graphics technology- we need to upgrade with every single generation to keep our products pertinent. When the price of a high end graphics card every generation does not nearly equate the added productivity for a designer or artist, it's basically a no brainer to save money by simply upgrading our workstations graphics and memory-wise as needed. If we wiped our systems out every generation, rather than just evaluating if it's worth it to upgrade only the graphics and memory, we'd waste a lot money. Besides, all our licensing systems are based out of a single server- so our customized installation is more about having an automated software distribution system than flashing the workstations with images.
We need all the customizability and versatility possible for our workstations, with the various tasks that people at our shop need to perform across the board.
Our internal IT guys are perfectly capable of tossing a graphics card into our Dell workstations, installing some drivers, and adding the approved drivers to a universally accessible network drive. The Windows platform is uniform enough to maintain secure IT policy across a collection of workstations that aren't 100% the same- and why bother having programmers run systems that are more specialized for art or artists run workstations that are more specialized for designers? We don't employ a sea of desk monkeys at our workplace, so we need the maximum productivity of every employee. This approach works, and it's not as awkward to maintain as you seem to think.
You're a kid, aren't you? Either that or you're ESL...
"real job" in a corporation... ?
Just because your company purchases from a certain vendor doesn't mean they treat the systems as preconfigured black-boxes. Our IT department upgrades and customizes our graphical workstations as needed.
Linux has a larger hardware support base- that's why corporations are adapting Linux as their alternative rather than Mac. Apple is simply not set up for wide-range adaptation- they operate as a proprietary system because they don't have the resources to support a larger market.
I personally don't believe Apple or GNU/Linux are going to win Microsoft's market share. I simply believe that companies like Red Hat and Novell are more suited to the budget-business range than Apple. Their system wouldn't 'just work' if it had to support all internal and external hardware available to consumers like Windows or Linux do.
The peripheral support you're referring to is really not a huge deal compared to supporting every single motherboard, chipset, gpu, cpu, hdd, memory controller, etc- available. They're supporting some printers and keyboards and game controllers, etc- generally with common drivers... I think in most cases, they're BSD drivers. It's not unrealistic to think that another company might take open source technologies and use them to create a more intelligent desktop system than Gnome or KDE- the same way Apple simply grabbed a bunch of GNU/OSS and tossed a more put together windowing system on it based on NeXT.
Ubuntu is living proof that Linux can be well-received by the desktop market. Apple's 'premium computers' will remain in wealthy households because they're expensive as hell. We're probably a generation or two away from someone finally nailing the easy, accessible open source desktop.
As long as Apple follows the 1980's computing model (computer as a black box), wide adaptation of the OS is a non-issue. Price is important to many people- not everyone is willing to spend twice as much for out-dated hardware simply for the logo and UI- especially when they do work that requires windows products or play games, etc.
Apple is not everyone's cup of tea- they could be if they were more focused on adaptation, versatility, customization, and wide-hardware support like MS. Apple's not vying for the market and they won't have it. If people care about the software, they'll be using Microsoft- Apple is still a toy if you're not a creative professional.
I expect Vista's performance in this product cycle to drive a leaner, more attractive and web-oriented MS product for their next desktop in a couple years, securing their market share- unless a new, possibly OSS player, takes the baton. Apple's growth will remain dependent on a rise in creative markets and very wealthy non-technical users.
You say that versatile customizable systems are not necessary for users, but what you're not considering is the possibility of OEMs making more intelligent embedded and user-friendly solutions without an Apple logo on them. (see Samsung's UpStage as compared to Apple's iPhone)
Too many Apple fanboys are reading this market growth as infinite. That's simply ignorant- it will cap. What they've acquired with this recent growth is a re-established corner of the market, that's all.
Apple doesn't want to take on the support task of a massive hardware base and driver signing, etc. I don't think Apple wants Microsoft's wide-range market. If they were interested, they would have taken on Dell's offer.
Honestly, the future of computing is not everyone using the same white plasticky computer... that scares the hell out of me. The moment Apple adds support for the everyman computer, suddenly they get to worry about MASS piracy, licensing to an unlimited and growing number of vendors, supporting weird and obscure hardware, oh dear!
Overnight, we'd see OS X becoming just as 'unstable' and 'blue-screeny' or more than Windows, which is set up to run on anything X86. Let's face it guys, Apple just doesn't have the hardware support range or driver/hardware-lab workforce of either Microsoft or the expansive open source community.
Linux is more likely to take Microsoft's budget marketshare than Apple. The Apple they're talking about here just isn't Apple. Microsoft and Linux are modular computing solutions- Apple's proprietary nature is part of the reason their system works as it does.
By graduating to personal insults, you actually detract from any credibility you might have recovered, since the substance of your argument is now entirely comprised of "I'm right not because of logic or fact, but because my 'opponent' is stupid." I'm not the one approaching non-disputed information with "reasonable doubt". I provided you a link and even a fun slashdot-safe timeline as a bonus; I am done with this "debate". I invite you to contemplate other obvious facts with your free time. Consider this: was the original Apple really a computer? Could have been a toaster.
I am only insulting you because you are clearly an idiot. If I wanted a serious discussion, I wouldn't go to slashdot. Slashdot is for fun flames with religous technologically-stunted maniacs and children pretending to be open source developers.
The internet is not the place to go for scholarly debates, discussion, or information for the most part... look at wikipedia.
If you can't read, which seems rather plausible at this point, you can ask for a friend or relative to help you find the article a few days back on slashdot where Bill Gates gives a University address in 1989. It includes audio. You can use your sleuthing skills to draw context clues from it on Gates' technical background.
It's not a straw man- it just seemed like a waste of time to google around for articles for people who have a selective understanding of the history of the personal computing market. Nobody just 'sits around and takes all the credit' in a tiny 2-person software operation.
I'll go ahead and create a more slashdot-friendly timeline:
1971: Steve Jobs invents the computer. Wozniak helps.
1975: Microsoft sucks d00d, lol.
1983: Richard Stallman creates GNU and they write the best tools because free things are always better than things that cost money.
1990: GNU creates HURD. Although it's better than windows, further down the timeline they eventually gave up on it because of how sweet Linux was.
1991: Linus Torvalds creates Linux. Within hours of its creation, it becomes the best operating system ever.
c. 1997: music becomes free. the internet rejoices.
2000: The government takes away everyones right to free music. Legions rise against the new corporate Nazi regime but are defeated with the help of Microsoft.
*Apple cures hunger by ripping off Mach and BSD in order to recreate NeXT, thus revitalizing the computing industry. Apple Computers proceed to make people more creative.
2006: Microsoft creates the Zune, but they're wrong.
2007: Microsoft tries to destroy the world by creating Vista. Linux is better than it. Nobody buys it. Linux wins.
*Steve Jobs offers to get rid of DRM, but pesky music execs make up a lie about how Apple perpetuated proprietary DRM with total vendor lock-in. Slashdot knows better. This obviously wasn't a marketing stunt following the consumer rejection of Vista's DRM system.
*Bill Gates given honorary Harvard degree- Slashdot users cleverly point out that he doesn't deserve it, since he's just a rich guy that people gave money to because he's evil.
If you are not a gamer then games are moot or if you already have a PS3, then you have Blu-Ray and games taken care of.
Who the hell has a PS3? Have they broken 2 million sales yet?
A complicated remotes and Windows media connectivity are moot if you are an iTMS customer on either windows or mac.
You have an interesting definition of simple. The Xbox360 will not play your iTMS purchases songs either. A complicated remote? I guess I never really thought of it that way. If you can't handle more than 8 buttons, use Apple. For the most part, you only need to use the directional buttons to navigate 360's interface. You're a ps3 fan, though, it seems- so you can augment the interface by putting a lava lamp next to your TV.
Again, you are pulling stuff out of your arse like the typical MSFT fanboy. WMV is irrelevant outside of windows media player. WMV is as prevalent or more than MOV. WMV support is considered a major selling point for commercial Linux distributions- and a fairly popular streaming video codec on the web. The whole internet has not switched to FLV yet.
Are you really? What consumer would want to bother with hackish iPod support or trying to crack DRM and transcode video into WMV? Most people still use CD's. You'd have to be an idiot to purchase an entire song collection in crippleware apple drm. Even the token Apple user, the sorority girl, generally has a mostly ripped iTunes library. Same goes for TV - DVD is still more prevalent.
I personally use a commercial music store and a subscription music service for most songs, but will not purchase anything in a DRM'd format- I use non-DRM services for that like Bleep.com.
From a consumer standpoint, the Apple TV is the obvious choice for anyone who does not have their computer near by especially if they buy songs and/or videos from iTMS.
...Because some people are dumb enough to spend 300 dollars on something that can be replaced by a long cable or a cleverly placed desktop system. I'm just being realistic here- the 360 is a perfectly viable home theater alternative.
If you're actually suggesting that someone might or should purchase a PS3 AND an Apple TV for their home theater system, while not having the wit or capability to use the magical TV-out feature on one of their PC's (yes, Macs are Personal Computers), then you and I have a very different definition of 'idiot'. Enjoy your crippled low-def media and crippled high-def game console.
You misread- our system is solid, it works, and it can be ported- but it's just not a major focus. We don't port- we have different studios port the code. We're a AAA studio, and it's just not worth our time- our work is too expensive, and we could be using that time to create new IP's.
It's not as broken as I make it sound- from the inside, it's always glass-half-empty, but from the outside, the code is solid and competitive. The point is that we didn't include opengl support, and never once considered mac or linux ports- we outsourced PS3 porting because the platform's distribution is too low to be worth the effort to build the game around the platform.
The Microsoft platform is very solid and easy to work with, and has helped us maintain a fairly organized product by default.
I'm not going to bust my NDA to go into specifics. From the perspective of someone who spends all day with sony devkits- I don't think this system is going anywhere. It's not as powerful or capable as they claim it is. It just isn't that good for games-
It's awesome for supercomputing and medical processing though- it's different requirements from the CPU, unfortunately.
I am currently working on a playstation 3 project for my studio... that system really doesn't impress me. I don't know where you got your info on Playstation Network, but it's not competitve with XBL.
I would say a PS3 is a step back, without the downloadable video and IPTV on the horizon.
The games content especially is not competitive. I'm talking about cost effective alternatives, not $600 mistakes. Trust me, I've been inside and out with the PS3- I have one on my desk at work and it is a joke.
The only benefit is that it's quieter- I suspect the next generation 360 hardware will improve on that, though.
It's more expensive. Of course its user base comes from higher-income households, on average. It is THE suburban daughter PC.
Other jackass-
Macs do not make you creative.... it's just a goddamn white-plasticky computer. Its operating system is aesthetically-pleasing. Christ, you guys are worse than scientologists.
Apple is more than just a computer- it's a personality disorder.
I've got a mac laptop and a Vista PC. Somehow I am able to be productive on both without grossly changing my personality.
THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE. It's a MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
You're absolutely right. If Microsoft wasn't targeting the gaming crowd, they probably could have given the 360 a more home theater appearance and focus- or given the device a means to run in a quiet, HTPC sort of mode.
I'm a game developer, I have all the reason in the world to own a 360.
My problem is that the AppleTV is perhaps a little too market-locking proprietary, and not quite capable enough to spend $299 on. That's a lot of money.
That's 63 delicious Jimmy John's sandwiches.
Although I really don't like iTunes/Apple, I would say that, as opposed to our comment on Apple's demographic [Idiots], you would be a more accurate depiction.
We can't all live artsy iLives, I suppose. Looks like a stream of photographs of trust-fund riding scenesters. Is this supposed to intimidate me?
In my experience, mac users are generally just obnoxious non-technical types who've taken on a vogue bastardized form of tech-evangelism. They don't think, they don't tinker- they're web designers (appearance, no functionality), livejournal trash (psych drugs and tears), blog journalists (all voice and appearance), and digital artists ("I didn't know adobe made products for windows!")
These people are all very impressive, but I'm pretty sure the guys who write their model/artist paychecks (so they can buy shrooms and go to ironic dive-bars) are using Windows.:P
At the core, they're buying slightly outdated hardware with a smooth, unix/NeXT based OS with a larger marketing budget than field of vision.
For a meager $399, I could get an Xbox360 with all these features AND dvd playback. It even does Hi-def downloads, Live Arcade games, and awesome AAA titles (GTA IV, Devil May Cry 4, (possibly) MGS and FF). That's got a remote, Windows Media connectivity, etc- and is expandable to play HD-DVD, potentially Blu-Ray in the future if it "wins".
It'll even play music off your iPod. Unless you buy ALL your tv off of iTunes, why would you get this? I'd just get a 360 for this money. Both are simple to use, also.
You can probably rip those videos into WMV if you really set upon it.
Clearly, either of these devices can be modded- but I'm talking from a consumer standpoint.
Why would the idea of an original in the software development scene of the 80's being a decent programmer be seriously disputed? When he used to write articles for BYTE, it was pretty clear he had an in-depth knowledge of what he was talking about. I believe Ballmer was the business man.
Just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean it wasn't started by programmers.
What a seemingly random move! I wonder what would prompt them to suddenly hop out of video sharing?
Maybe Microsoft doesn't yet want to try to wrestle Google out of the "Getting Sued for a Billion Dollars" market. They have pretty solid domination at this point.
He did extensive work on many of the original BASIC compilers. The last actual code check-ins he made were on the BASIC compiler for the TRS/80. I'm lead to believe he provided some technical direction on DOS, as well. He used to write evangelist articles on the necessity of Operating Systems in personal computers. Visionary stuff.
All I know is from what I've read.
If you want to take the "you don't know unless you've experienced it" approach, then I challenge you to prove to me, personally, that the Earth is round. Good luck, enjoy your journey.
Bill Gates used to write compilers. I'm sure he's an above average coder- people who used to work at Microsoft in the 80's/early 90's have described Bill Gates' problem solving abilities as pretty solid. He'd help people solve a code issue every now and then.
In the original software giants, a lot of the people up-high are solid programmers. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're not self-made.
The KBR, part of Halliburton, are well-known war profiteers.
Let me put this into more direct terms-
THEY PROFIT OFF OF WAR. People DIE... for MONEY. Your heads are up your asses. The RIAA sues people for stealing music. Whoop-de-fucking-shit. Every now and then they sue the wrong person. So what? Your music needs to be played on a certain platform? What the Hell does that matter. You are not DEAD.
And to think that people would consider Microsoft worst than both of these. Outside of fanboyism-based hatred... they don't even sue old ladies. They're not the worst when dealing with Chinese censorship. You may dislike their business practices... but most hated? You spend too much time on Slashdot. Apple has worse business practices. They're not even close to the RIAA.
Peoples' priorities are all backwards. You bunch of selfish jackasses are complaining about where you can play your music or what operating system you can use to view your documents while a massive corporation that hires mercenaries to wipe people out on a daily basis is 'not as bad'?. And then they took all their shit and moved to DUBAI to live like gods. DRM is obviously not the greatest ill in this country... rampant stupidity is. Don't get your BS causes mixed up with the reality of LIFE and DEATH.
Bunch of pricks. Go ahead and mod me down, just don't forget this when you're voting.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM isn't an issue for corporate buyers. It's only an issue for linux and apple fanboys.
Quit being a cockmunch, Aristotle-Dude, before I stick your ass in a headlock.
First, our workstations aren't custom-built, but they are customized after the fact.
You're failing to see the obvious applications of those of us who need high-end graphical workstations to run things like Maya and 3dsmax. As long as the products we're developing are advancing on the bleeding edge of graphics technology- we need to upgrade with every single generation to keep our products pertinent. When the price of a high end graphics card every generation does not nearly equate the added productivity for a designer or artist, it's basically a no brainer to save money by simply upgrading our workstations graphics and memory-wise as needed. If we wiped our systems out every generation, rather than just evaluating if it's worth it to upgrade only the graphics and memory, we'd waste a lot money. Besides, all our licensing systems are based out of a single server- so our customized installation is more about having an automated software distribution system than flashing the workstations with images.
We need all the customizability and versatility possible for our workstations, with the various tasks that people at our shop need to perform across the board.
Our internal IT guys are perfectly capable of tossing a graphics card into our Dell workstations, installing some drivers, and adding the approved drivers to a universally accessible network drive. The Windows platform is uniform enough to maintain secure IT policy across a collection of workstations that aren't 100% the same- and why bother having programmers run systems that are more specialized for art or artists run workstations that are more specialized for designers? We don't employ a sea of desk monkeys at our workplace, so we need the maximum productivity of every employee. This approach works, and it's not as awkward to maintain as you seem to think.
You're a kid, aren't you? Either that or you're ESL...
"real job" in a corporation... ?
Just because your company purchases from a certain vendor doesn't mean they treat the systems as preconfigured black-boxes. Our IT department upgrades and customizes our graphical workstations as needed.
Assmunch.
Score 0? This is one of maybe 4 intelligent comments on this entire thread.
Linux has a larger hardware support base- that's why corporations are adapting Linux as their alternative rather than Mac. Apple is simply not set up for wide-range adaptation- they operate as a proprietary system because they don't have the resources to support a larger market.
I personally don't believe Apple or GNU/Linux are going to win Microsoft's market share. I simply believe that companies like Red Hat and Novell are more suited to the budget-business range than Apple. Their system wouldn't 'just work' if it had to support all internal and external hardware available to consumers like Windows or Linux do.
The peripheral support you're referring to is really not a huge deal compared to supporting every single motherboard, chipset, gpu, cpu, hdd, memory controller, etc- available. They're supporting some printers and keyboards and game controllers, etc- generally with common drivers... I think in most cases, they're BSD drivers. It's not unrealistic to think that another company might take open source technologies and use them to create a more intelligent desktop system than Gnome or KDE- the same way Apple simply grabbed a bunch of GNU/OSS and tossed a more put together windowing system on it based on NeXT.
Ubuntu is living proof that Linux can be well-received by the desktop market. Apple's 'premium computers' will remain in wealthy households because they're expensive as hell. We're probably a generation or two away from someone finally nailing the easy, accessible open source desktop.
As long as Apple follows the 1980's computing model (computer as a black box), wide adaptation of the OS is a non-issue. Price is important to many people- not everyone is willing to spend twice as much for out-dated hardware simply for the logo and UI- especially when they do work that requires windows products or play games, etc.
Apple is not everyone's cup of tea- they could be if they were more focused on adaptation, versatility, customization, and wide-hardware support like MS. Apple's not vying for the market and they won't have it. If people care about the software, they'll be using Microsoft- Apple is still a toy if you're not a creative professional.
I expect Vista's performance in this product cycle to drive a leaner, more attractive and web-oriented MS product for their next desktop in a couple years, securing their market share- unless a new, possibly OSS player, takes the baton. Apple's growth will remain dependent on a rise in creative markets and very wealthy non-technical users.
You say that versatile customizable systems are not necessary for users, but what you're not considering is the possibility of OEMs making more intelligent embedded and user-friendly solutions without an Apple logo on them. (see Samsung's UpStage as compared to Apple's iPhone)
Too many Apple fanboys are reading this market growth as infinite. That's simply ignorant- it will cap. What they've acquired with this recent growth is a re-established corner of the market, that's all.
Dumbass.
Apple doesn't want to take on the support task of a massive hardware base and driver signing, etc. I don't think Apple wants Microsoft's wide-range market. If they were interested, they would have taken on Dell's offer.
Honestly, the future of computing is not everyone using the same white plasticky computer... that scares the hell out of me. The moment Apple adds support for the everyman computer, suddenly they get to worry about MASS piracy, licensing to an unlimited and growing number of vendors, supporting weird and obscure hardware, oh dear!
Overnight, we'd see OS X becoming just as 'unstable' and 'blue-screeny' or more than Windows, which is set up to run on anything X86. Let's face it guys, Apple just doesn't have the hardware support range or driver/hardware-lab workforce of either Microsoft or the expansive open source community.
Linux is more likely to take Microsoft's budget marketshare than Apple. The Apple they're talking about here just isn't Apple. Microsoft and Linux are modular computing solutions- Apple's proprietary nature is part of the reason their system works as it does.
I am only insulting you because you are clearly an idiot. If I wanted a serious discussion, I wouldn't go to slashdot. Slashdot is for fun flames with religous technologically-stunted maniacs and children pretending to be open source developers.
The internet is not the place to go for scholarly debates, discussion, or information for the most part... look at wikipedia.
A lot of his older articles can be navigated to through this cleverly constructed tag cloud.
/
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/tags
If you can't read, which seems rather plausible at this point, you can ask for a friend or relative to help you find the article a few days back on slashdot where Bill Gates gives a University address in 1989. It includes audio. You can use your sleuthing skills to draw context clues from it on Gates' technical background.
It's not a straw man- it just seemed like a waste of time to google around for articles for people who have a selective understanding of the history of the personal computing market. Nobody just 'sits around and takes all the credit' in a tiny 2-person software operation.
I'll go ahead and create a more slashdot-friendly timeline:
1971: Steve Jobs invents the computer. Wozniak helps.
1975: Microsoft sucks d00d, lol.
1983: Richard Stallman creates GNU and they write the best tools because free things are always better than things that cost money.
1990: GNU creates HURD. Although it's better than windows, further down the timeline they eventually gave up on it because of how sweet Linux was.
1991: Linus Torvalds creates Linux. Within hours of its creation, it becomes the best operating system ever.
c. 1997: music becomes free. the internet rejoices.
2000: The government takes away everyones right to free music. Legions rise against the new corporate Nazi regime but are defeated with the help of Microsoft.
*Apple cures hunger by ripping off Mach and BSD in order to recreate NeXT, thus revitalizing the computing industry. Apple Computers proceed to make people more creative.
2006: Microsoft creates the Zune, but they're wrong.
2007: Microsoft tries to destroy the world by creating Vista. Linux is better than it. Nobody buys it. Linux wins.
*Steve Jobs offers to get rid of DRM, but pesky music execs make up a lie about how Apple perpetuated proprietary DRM with total vendor lock-in. Slashdot knows better. This obviously wasn't a marketing stunt following the consumer rejection of Vista's DRM system.
*Bill Gates given honorary Harvard degree- Slashdot users cleverly point out that he doesn't deserve it, since he's just a rich guy that people gave money to because he's evil.
I guess you're right now.
Dear Rob,
The UK market is tiny and not a huge priority.
Love,
The Game Industry
If you are not a gamer then games are moot or if you already have a PS3, then you have Blu-Ray and games taken care of.
Who the hell has a PS3? Have they broken 2 million sales yet?A complicated remotes and Windows media connectivity are moot if you are an iTMS customer on either windows or mac.
You have an interesting definition of simple. The Xbox360 will not play your iTMS purchases songs either. A complicated remote? I guess I never really thought of it that way. If you can't handle more than 8 buttons, use Apple. For the most part, you only need to use the directional buttons to navigate 360's interface. You're a ps3 fan, though, it seems- so you can augment the interface by putting a lava lamp next to your TV. Again, you are pulling stuff out of your arse like the typical MSFT fanboy. WMV is irrelevant outside of windows media player. WMV is as prevalent or more than MOV. WMV support is considered a major selling point for commercial Linux distributions- and a fairly popular streaming video codec on the web. The whole internet has not switched to FLV yet. Are you really? What consumer would want to bother with hackish iPod support or trying to crack DRM and transcode video into WMV? Most people still use CD's. You'd have to be an idiot to purchase an entire song collection in crippleware apple drm. Even the token Apple user, the sorority girl, generally has a mostly ripped iTunes library. Same goes for TV - DVD is still more prevalent.I personally use a commercial music store and a subscription music service for most songs, but will not purchase anything in a DRM'd format- I use non-DRM services for that like Bleep.com.
From a consumer standpoint, the Apple TV is the obvious choice for anyone who does not have their computer near by especially if they buy songs and/or videos from iTMS.
...Because some people are dumb enough to spend 300 dollars on something that can be replaced by a long cable or a cleverly placed desktop system. I'm just being realistic here- the 360 is a perfectly viable home theater alternative.If you're actually suggesting that someone might or should purchase a PS3 AND an Apple TV for their home theater system, while not having the wit or capability to use the magical TV-out feature on one of their PC's (yes, Macs are Personal Computers), then you and I have a very different definition of 'idiot'. Enjoy your crippled low-def media and crippled high-def game console.
You misread- our system is solid, it works, and it can be ported- but it's just not a major focus. We don't port- we have different studios port the code. We're a AAA studio, and it's just not worth our time- our work is too expensive, and we could be using that time to create new IP's.
It's not as broken as I make it sound- from the inside, it's always glass-half-empty, but from the outside, the code is solid and competitive. The point is that we didn't include opengl support, and never once considered mac or linux ports- we outsourced PS3 porting because the platform's distribution is too low to be worth the effort to build the game around the platform.
The Microsoft platform is very solid and easy to work with, and has helped us maintain a fairly organized product by default.
If you're reading this, Microsoft, a few dollars couldn't hurt. :)
I'm not going to bust my NDA to go into specifics. From the perspective of someone who spends all day with sony devkits- I don't think this system is going anywhere. It's not as powerful or capable as they claim it is. It just isn't that good for games-
It's awesome for supercomputing and medical processing though- it's different requirements from the CPU, unfortunately.
I am currently working on a playstation 3 project for my studio... that system really doesn't impress me. I don't know where you got your info on Playstation Network, but it's not competitve with XBL.
I would say a PS3 is a step back, without the downloadable video and IPTV on the horizon.
The games content especially is not competitive. I'm talking about cost effective alternatives, not $600 mistakes. Trust me, I've been inside and out with the PS3- I have one on my desk at work and it is a joke.
The only benefit is that it's quieter- I suspect the next generation 360 hardware will improve on that, though.
These burrowing dinosaurs must be from the species of Skeletal Dinosaurs we've found living underground for millions of years.
;)
SECRET TIP: Use bludgeoning weapons when fighting skeletal dinosaurs, they're resistant to piercing!
It's more expensive. Of course its user base comes from higher-income households, on average. It is THE suburban daughter PC.
Other jackass-
Macs do not make you creative.... it's just a goddamn white-plasticky computer. Its operating system is aesthetically-pleasing. Christ, you guys are worse than scientologists.
Apple is more than just a computer- it's a personality disorder.
I've got a mac laptop and a Vista PC. Somehow I am able to be productive on both without grossly changing my personality.
THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE. It's a MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
You're absolutely right. If Microsoft wasn't targeting the gaming crowd, they probably could have given the 360 a more home theater appearance and focus- or given the device a means to run in a quiet, HTPC sort of mode.
I'm a game developer, I have all the reason in the world to own a 360.
My problem is that the AppleTV is perhaps a little too market-locking proprietary, and not quite capable enough to spend $299 on. That's a lot of money.
That's 63 delicious Jimmy John's sandwiches.
Although I really don't like iTunes/Apple, I would say that, as opposed to our comment on Apple's demographic [Idiots], you would be a more accurate depiction.
We can't all live artsy iLives, I suppose. Looks like a stream of photographs of trust-fund riding scenesters. Is this supposed to intimidate me?
:P
In my experience, mac users are generally just obnoxious non-technical types who've taken on a vogue bastardized form of tech-evangelism. They don't think, they don't tinker- they're web designers (appearance, no functionality), livejournal trash (psych drugs and tears), blog journalists (all voice and appearance), and digital artists ("I didn't know adobe made products for windows!")
These people are all very impressive, but I'm pretty sure the guys who write their model/artist paychecks (so they can buy shrooms and go to ironic dive-bars) are using Windows.
At the core, they're buying slightly outdated hardware with a smooth, unix/NeXT based OS with a larger marketing budget than field of vision.
I'm not an idiot, Apple.
For a meager $399, I could get an Xbox360 with all these features AND dvd playback. It even does Hi-def downloads, Live Arcade games, and awesome AAA titles (GTA IV, Devil May Cry 4, (possibly) MGS and FF). That's got a remote, Windows Media connectivity, etc- and is expandable to play HD-DVD, potentially Blu-Ray in the future if it "wins".
It'll even play music off your iPod. Unless you buy ALL your tv off of iTunes, why would you get this? I'd just get a 360 for this money. Both are simple to use, also.
You can probably rip those videos into WMV if you really set upon it.
Clearly, either of these devices can be modded- but I'm talking from a consumer standpoint.
That was painful to watch. Open source community, either have web talent do it, or get some money together if you want decent ads.
That was awkward. Ouch.
All they expressed is that Linux exists, and is 'cute'.
Mac should have revealed GNU/BSD technologies at its core by lifting up his shirt and showing a mutated semi-open-source Kuato!!
"KILL ME..."
Mac: Not today! Not ever! Ha-ha!
Why would the idea of an original in the software development scene of the 80's being a decent programmer be seriously disputed? When he used to write articles for BYTE, it was pretty clear he had an in-depth knowledge of what he was talking about. I believe Ballmer was the business man.
Just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean it wasn't started by programmers.
What a seemingly random move! I wonder what would prompt them to suddenly hop out of video sharing?
Maybe Microsoft doesn't yet want to try to wrestle Google out of the "Getting Sued for a Billion Dollars" market. They have pretty solid domination at this point.
He did extensive work on many of the original BASIC compilers. The last actual code check-ins he made were on the BASIC compiler for the TRS/80. I'm lead to believe he provided some technical direction on DOS, as well. He used to write evangelist articles on the necessity of Operating Systems in personal computers. Visionary stuff.
All I know is from what I've read.
If you want to take the "you don't know unless you've experienced it" approach, then I challenge you to prove to me, personally, that the Earth is round. Good luck, enjoy your journey.
Bill Gates used to write compilers. I'm sure he's an above average coder- people who used to work at Microsoft in the 80's/early 90's have described Bill Gates' problem solving abilities as pretty solid. He'd help people solve a code issue every now and then.
In the original software giants, a lot of the people up-high are solid programmers. Just because they're rich doesn't mean they're not self-made.
The KBR, part of Halliburton, are well-known war profiteers.
Let me put this into more direct terms-
THEY PROFIT OFF OF WAR. People DIE... for MONEY. Your heads are up your asses. The RIAA sues people for stealing music. Whoop-de-fucking-shit. Every now and then they sue the wrong person. So what? Your music needs to be played on a certain platform? What the Hell does that matter. You are not DEAD.
And to think that people would consider Microsoft worst than both of these. Outside of fanboyism-based hatred... they don't even sue old ladies. They're not the worst when dealing with Chinese censorship. You may dislike their business practices... but most hated? You spend too much time on Slashdot. Apple has worse business practices. They're not even close to the RIAA.
Peoples' priorities are all backwards. You bunch of selfish jackasses are complaining about where you can play your music or what operating system you can use to view your documents while a massive corporation that hires mercenaries to wipe people out on a daily basis is 'not as bad'?. And then they took all their shit and moved to DUBAI to live like gods. DRM is obviously not the greatest ill in this country... rampant stupidity is. Don't get your BS causes mixed up with the reality of LIFE and DEATH.
Bunch of pricks. Go ahead and mod me down, just don't forget this when you're voting.