Here's a short list of those that don't have a decent Linux counterpart. These are just from my personal experience.
Exact Audio Copy. Nothing Linux has comes close. Enough said.
iTunes. Rhythmbox has the look and feel, but still won't playback mp3's gaplessly when the necessary metadata is present. It can do gapless with vorbis, but I'm not re-encoding my entire library from scratch to do something iTunes already does, not to mention having files that won't play on common music players. Amarok might have worked out, except when it locks up every time you import your music library, a known limitation the writers have acknowledged but refuse to fix, simply saying their player wasn't meant to handle that many tracks. (it's not a bug, it's a feature!) MPD sounds fantastic, but the limitations of the available frontends and the configuration hassle leave something to be desired.
Dozens of games. Stupid Microsoft and their DirectX... and don't tell me about virtualization and wine, it's either native or GTFO. Games crash enough and lag enough running on Windows without having another layer of configuration and fail to screw it up. I'm more of a console gamer anyway but still...
Abobe Flash Player. It works... sort of... almost... until you fullscreen and it makes Firefox just up and quit. Fail. I'm pretty sure that's Adobe's fault, though.
UPnP/DLNA Server software. There's plenty of software to do this, including mediatomb, mythtv, ushare, and so on. I have yet to find one solution that doesn't cost money that works with my Xbox 360, despite spending days trying every technique I can find to make them work. If I'm going to buy a "binary blob" just to get a service working without having to spend ridiculous amounts of time in the command line and actually have it not work then I'll buy a copy of Windows and get a freeware program that's easy to use and configure. I'm sure I could get it to work under Linux, but why should I have to spend all that time figuring it out when I could be spending it watching stuff on my 360.
I love my Linux Box; it's stable, secure, and fast. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Linux on the desktop, but when Windows can do multimedia without all the bullshit required to make Linux do the same thing and then in some cases have Windows do it better, it's no wonder the only success Linux has seen is on servers and netbooks. Long story short, games and multimedia suck on Linux.
Currently running Ubuntu 9.04, if you wanted to know.
Right, its ok to make drugs illegal. Its ok to have anti-sodomy laws. Its ok to have laws that stop two people that love one another from getting married.
No, it isn't ok. It's total bullshit. In this country, we don't need health care reform or tax reform or patent reform, we need government reform. Nothing less than a well-written amendment to our constitution could ever fix the problem, either. In this country, you should have the right to do anything you damn well please, so long as what you do does not directly harm another or infringe another's right to do whatever the hell they want to do. And it should never be the government's place to decide what you're allowed to do with or put into your body. Furthermore, these rights should never be restricted based on whether or not anyone finds any action taken by anyone offensive or inappropriate, unless said action is meant to directly affect another in a negative or hurtful manner, such as harassment or slander or assault.
My emphasis on the word "directly" here is important; people seem to think that because they don't like something, there ought to be a law to stop it or impede it. That's a load of bullshit, too. If two people of the same sex get married, it has absolutely no effect on you other than if you think it's weird or wrong. If a person uses drugs and fucks up their life, it was their life to fuck up; as for the people they hurt because of their drug abuse, yes, that's something they can be held accountable for and the law should reflect that, just like it does with drinking alcohol and driving. If a person wants to ask you if you found Jesus, that's their right, just like it's your right to tell them to fuck off. And banning and taxing food products or even drugs over health concerns? So long as the consumer knows the risks, it should be their choice. None of these these things directly affect anyone except those who choose to do them, and they only reason there should ever be a law for anything is to ensure no real harm comes to an individual because of another individual's direct action against them.
This country has a lot of issues it needs to resolve and this would by no means fix them all, but it would be a good step in the right direction. Instead of relying on laws to stop something people don't like even if it doesn't affect them, they can just deal with it; it's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be.
Guess I won't upgrade if this is what they want to do, or perhaps this would be a good time for a fork... either way, I don't particularly care for the way all this new software keeps getting stripped of conventional features or hides them for the sake of new, flashy interfaces that merely serve as a way to slow everything the hell down. iTunes and Cover Flow, while pretty, are annoying as hell, and Apple's Safari browser got that nasty crap added to it not too long ago, too. And it's all sorts of a pain to disable it. All I know is I hope Firefox doesn't go down the same route.
If I had mod points, I'd mod this informative just because I didn't know that. Considering I've subjected myself to the right click menu for that function for well over a year, this information is quite helpful!
They are in our past and present, we are just not in that dimension. Time travel to the past would lead you to another dimension but would never alter the past we have presently lived. We will never see time travel in our past and our current present. Our future is a different story since the path we are traveling can still be altered.
Didn't I see something like this on Dragonball Z?
Oh crap, here come the mods with that really big stick again...*ducks for cover*
Contra is unplayable without the Konami Code because it was originally an arcade game designed to eat all of your quarters by being difficult as hell. There's no way to stick more quarters in an NES to get more tries, so the code is the only way to go if you don't have m4d 1337 ski11z.
Funny as this is, I do like my buttons. As far as running and jumping in a video game goes, I'd rather hold down the B button and press the A button as necessary. How would this be accomplished on Natal? My first guess involves the Power Pad for the NES. No thanks, I looked stupid enough doing that when I was eight.
Don't get me wrong, I like motion control; I find the Wii remote to be intuitive and easy to learn and control, but at least it has buttons and triggers. It looks to me as though using Natal would be like shooting a gun without a trigger, or typing on a keyboard without buttons. How can you know for sure you pressed anything without tactile feedback? Without buttons to press, control in a lot of games would become sloppy or unmanageable. Fighting games like Street Fighter are right out, Same for FPS games like Halo, as well. And forget about any type of platformer or action title.
Obviously Natal has the potential to bring a new class of motion control games to the market, but it's not a replacement for a controller for traditional gaming, no matter how impressive it's capabilities are. Nintendo has a better balance in it's control scheme, IMHO, as it has the best of both worlds. It can do a game like Mario or Zelda or Call of Duty where the Natal system would prove more difficult to use, yet also allows for intuitive motion gaming experiences like Wii Sports' and Wii Play's various games.
Of course, I can't see Microsoft actually implementing a control scheme that doesn't involve users spending $40 or more to add additional player capability to their console, not to mention optional rechargeable battery packs and charge cables. Last I checked, Microsoft likes money.
My only maxim in life is to question everything. Do you really think Apple would go out of business by selling their OS to everyone? Is Apple dependent on Mac sales like they were when they first licensed clones? Do you think what was true back when Apple first tried licensing clones is true now? What has changed since then? Does everybody saying the same thing make it true or untrue? Or are those people merely sharing an opinion?
You ask for proof to a hypothesis that hasn't been tested, and assume you have proof to the contrary even though the control conditions are different than before. Jobs himself cited Apple's dependency on computer sales as the undoing of the clone program, and now, courtesy of the iPod, the iPhone, and the iTunes store, that dependency no longer exists. Those facts you cited don't apply to the current scenario; it was Jobs' opinion that it was not possible to succeed in licensing Mac OS, but times have changed and I feel that it would be worth their while to try again. I can't prove whether it would work or not but it looks really good on paper. If you want proof, I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if Apple gives it another shot, so it's really up to them to find out.
At any rate, I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I questioned everything I could, looked into every angle presented, and came to my own conclusion based on reason, logic, and google.com; as I said, I've heard all these arguments before, over the last two years, and it seems no one can offer anything fresh to make me question my opinion on the matter. I think Apple stands to make more money overall licensing Mac OS X for PCs than not and I think not offering Mac OS X for PCs is their way of forcing hardware sales on consumers who want to run Mac OS X instead of Windows, even though Mac OS X sold by itself has a higher profit margin even if offered at an OEM discount, due to the inherent nature of how any software's profit margin increases for each copy sold, and volume sales to PC users and vendors over time would net enough profit to more than make up for any possible loss, if any, incurred in hardware sales as well as increasing their customer base dramatically, creating further sales potential and strengthening the Apple brand as a whole; take it with a grain of salt if you must, but that's just my opinion. You are entitled to have your own.
There's no point arguing with you, especially since I'm confident Mac OS X will be released for PCs eventually and these debates get far too tiring. Seriously, I hear the same preconditioned responses from Apple fans every time this subject comes up and getting drawn into it by trying to reason just leaves me frustrated because they've already made up their minds on the issue. It's sad because they always say how great Mac OS X is compared to Windows, but then balk at the idea of Apple trying to compete with Microsoft, producing the kind of FUD that keeps Microsoft on top in the first place. So much for thinking different. But still, this particular bit really bothers me.
You don't really care if Apple were to offer OS X for any PC, you'd just build a hackitosh and pirate OS X.
I wouldn't have even tried to voice my opinion at all if this were the case. Why would I even bother to put in my two cents if I didn't even care? Here, pay close attention, I would buy Mac OS X if it was offered for use on computers other than ones Apple makes, but since they don't, I won't. And I already built a PC that runs Mac OS X and I already pirated it because buying it doesn't give me the right to use it on my machine. My act of using Mac OS X without paying for is an act of protest, whether you want to believe it or not. If I were to pay for it, as some people do even though they are still violating the EULA by installing it on a non-Apple machine, there would be no incentive for Apple to change said EULA so I could buy a copy and legally use it. The way it stands, it shows that I'm interested in Mac OS X, but that I believe their software and license are being unfairly leveraged to make me buy hardware I don't want. You can rest assured the moment that Apple offers PC users and system builders the ability to install Mac OS X on their systems without breaking their license I'll be on their web site to buy it. Maybe a System Builders version, or something like that. They could make it only for hobbyists if they're so worried about PC vendors stealing their business. They don't even have to support it, I just want to use it LEGALLY without buying a computer I don't want. Like I said, they will most likely release it eventually, I just wish it would happen before I give up and move to Ubuntu.
On another note, as of this moment, I shall no longer use the word hackintosh, as it implies to the average joe that the act of using software as the user sees fit is a crime, a view that I'm sure most slashdotters would agree is detrimental to the idea of user rights.
Except most people don't install OSes. While MS sells OS upgrades most people use the OS that was installed on their PC when they got it.
Yeah, and if they got a PC they wanted with Mac OS installed on it, they would use it. They might even choose it if they had the option to get it instead of Windows or Linux, but PC vendors can't even offer it. And so what if most customers aren't "tech savvy" enough to install their own OS? I am, and a lot of people are. Almost every slashdot user, for example. It's not like the installers are complicated anymore, either. Even for those who don't want to fiddle with it, they know someone who can do it for them, most likely for free.
So then you pirated OS X?
Yes, I did. No reason to pay for it if I'm just violating their EULA anyway and I don't own a Mac that can run it legitimately. I would have paid for it if only for those minor issues. And I don't want to buy a copy with a Mac to run it on; my PC is better. Not all PCs are better, but mine is. And if for some reason Apple decided to come after me for it, I'll just boot into Ubuntu, my second choice, and wash my hands of them altogether. What's with this question anyway, did you expect me to lie or just get scared? I know what I said and I know if some Apple exec reads it he'll be all upset about it. It's not like I'm the only one who's doing the exact same thing for the very reasons I've outlined here, I'm just not afraid to tell it like it is. I kinda hope one does, maybe they could take a hint and open the licensing a bit. I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Apple did license Mac clones and lost money on it.
Proving my suggestion that the only reason people buy their hardware is because Mac OS is on it in the first place. They limit what systems it can be installed on only because they feel they can't compete in the open market, which is silly if their hardware is so great. Yeah, the notebooks are okay, but when it comes to desktops, the fact is they have no interest in making hardware suitable for power users that doesn't require you to rob half a dozen banking establishments to get the monetary funds necessary to acquire it. I've used a real Mac Pro, mind you, and I can tell you without a doubt my system is just as capable as said system, and it set me back a grand total of $850 shipped when I bought it. The Mac Pro a good machine, but not $2500+ good. The rest of their models are too limited for me; I don't want to send in my machine because the optical drive stopped working, I want to either go to best buy and buy a new one and put it in the same day, or take one from my old computer and put that one in the same day. Call me old fashioned, but I like to fix my own stuff. Lots of people do.
More to the point, they lost money on licensing Mac clones because of bad management in the first place. They only let a select number of vendors make them, not nearly enough to make up the difference in loss of hardware sales, a loss which wouldn't have been so bad had they offered reasonable competition on the hardware front. In short, the other guys made faster systems that were cheaper. This is still true today; the only difference is now you can't get Mac OS on anything but an Apple. This forces you to buy their hardware if you want their OS, which I think is ridiculous since it's apparent that they could reasonably let you use it on any PC you wanted to. Now if every PC vendor offered Mac OS X then Apple would make enough money off of licensing and software sales where it wouldn't matter if customers bought their hardware or not. We know this will work because Microsoft does it. And don't tell me nearly every PC vendor on the planet wouldn't love to have something to offer other than Vista or Linux. People know what Mac OS is, Apple's countless TV ads have seen to that. Linux is great, but the masses don't really know or haven't heard enough about it to try it, so unless a bunch of Linux developers want to pool toge
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux or even Windows on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Because they don't like Apple hardware; either it's too limited for their needs (iMac, Mac Mini) or it's simply not competitively priced to what they can build or buy from elsewhere (Mac Pro, Mac Book).
There is obviously a market for people who want Mac OS for different hardware. This is an example of a company not giving a damn about what customers want, and selling only what they want you to have. They don't want to sell Mac OS for regular PCs because of Steve Jobs' egotistical, head-up-his-ass view that his company needs to micro manage the Mac environment because every other computer company is a piece of crap on a dry highway in comparison and they'll just screw up his precious Mac OS with their "inferior" hardware.
I use Mac OS X on a PC because I feel it is the best OS software for my needs, on the best hardware for my needs. Apple doesn't see a dime from it because I'm not going to buy a retail disc with a license agreement that won't let me install it on what I want to. And I'm not going to until they let everyone do it. They can talk all day about losing money in their hardware division if they allow PCs to use Mac OS X; maybe if Mac OS is the only reason your computers sell, your hardware isn't that great to begin with. You know why Macs don't take over the market? Because people buy computers from other companies instead, and they use any OS except Mac OS X because that's what comes with the hardware they do buy. They don't have the option to use Mac OS X even though they might want to, so they don't. Only a small amount of people are willing to purchase Apple hardware in order to get Mac OS X. Those are Apple's current customer base. Everyone else is a potential customer that Apple doesn't have in their customer base. I'll go out on a limb and say the latter outnumber the former by a wide margin.
Apple has three things potential customers want: iPods, iTunes, and Mac OS X. Forcing someone to buy a whole computer instead of just the OS software they want is a dirty way to push your hardware sales. And it's not even working very well.
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Because they don't like Apple hardware; either it's too limited for their needs (iMac, Mac Mini) or it's simply not competitively priced to what they can build or buy from elsewhere (Mac Pro).
Good old C. Nothing beats C.
Also C++.
The important thing to remember is once you develop your skills in one language, it's easy to reapply those skills when learning the next. So really, once you master a programming language you will find you can do just about anything in any other language just by learning the syntax and keyword structure.
My point is, your design skills should come first. And C or C++ are good places to develop those skills.
That "you can get more money with a lawyer" thing is exactly why the court systems are bogged up with frivolous lawsuits in the first place. It's the new American mentality and I can't stand it. This guy actually had a legitimate reason to sue, actually had the system work for him and give him his due, and all anyone can say is "He's an idiot for not having a lawyer to get him more money."
Just because the company infringing on his work was an asshat about it doesn't mean the photographer has to be. To do so would make him just like the RIAA we all despise. He got way more money than he lost from the infringement as it is; I'm certain stock photo rights do not amount anywhere close to $19,462. He only got that much because he had to go through all the BS to get what he deserved in the first place, and I'm sure he's more than satisfied with the award given. That "get more money and stick 'em with attorney fees" thing sounds downright malicious to me. Isn't it enough that the company was held liable for their use of the photograph in the first place? Nope, we gotta teach those bastards a lesson.
It wouldn't seem like such a good idea to you folks if you got sued, lost, and had to pay the awarded judgment, attorney's fees for yourself AND for the party suing you. Of course, you aren't an infringer of copyright, are you? Of course you're not.
Yeah, there is something seriously wrong with this list...
40. WarioWare, Inc. 54. Chrono Trigger
There aren't words for how dumb this is. Sure, not everyone likes RPGs, but to claim that there are more readers of Edge that prefer the equivalency of first-party shovelware over a game oft spoke of in legends is tantamount to saying, "All Edge readers are either ten years old, are masochists, or have the mental capacity of a pet rock."
Chrono Trigger had state of the art, anime-style graphics, an engaging storyline involving time travel with a variety of colorful characters, a battle system that blended seamlessly with exploration and allowed party members to combine their techniques for more powerful attacks, over a dozen multiple endings, and a bunch of minigames to boot.
WarioWare has... a bunch of minigames.
I'll admit WarioWare has a certain appeal, which for me was about 20 to 30 minutes. As for Chrono Trigger, I don't think I can count the number of hours I've spent playing it, though I think I've completed the game at least thirty times.
I figure my gameplay is directly proportional to how much effort and resources went into the developement of each title. Not that this is always the case; some of us may remember a well-resourced effort by John Romero to make himself a prominent figure in the gaming scene again, only to release Daikatana, the biggest steampile of FPS ever to grace a computer monitor. But I digress.
The reality check here is that this list of "best video games ever" was created by soliciting an opinion from people who read a magazine to figure out what the "best video games ever" are. A far better source for said list would be a carefully selected group of experienced gamers who've played a majority of the titles in existance so that they can leverage an opinion that's not total crap.
You would think the staff at Edge would be a sufficient panel of experts on this matter, however, this is not the case because no gaming magazine in their right mind would allow a list derived from their readers to represent the publications' opinion in this fashion. If I were them, I would've emphasised that these are the opinions of Edge readers' and that this is not necessarily the opinion of Edge or it's staff. As it stands, Edge has let themselves look like they've got their heads tucked in their backsides.
Would you be comfortable with a frat house full of concealed handgun owners? Knowing that the crazy pothead next door was packing? Change the "pothead" to "methhead" and maybe I'll be concerned. Weed doesn't make you crazy. Paranoid, maybe, but then you're Mr. Happy-giggles and you don't have the desire or ambition to even lift a gun, much less shoot somebody. Now meth users, with half their cognitive capability eroded away in a single use. Give then some guns: THAT"S scary shit.
You do realize, its the VP of marketing's JOB to tell us crap, the VP of hardware production and logistics should be out there making us more Wii-s. Exactly. For those who don't know who Perrin Kaplan is, she is the dumb bitch who insists on spreading FUD about her own company, just to have Nintendo go and retract her statements a day later. This is up there with her saying the Gamecube is out of production and the Wii is about twice as fast as the GC.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a short list of those that don't have a decent Linux counterpart. These are just from my personal experience.
Exact Audio Copy. Nothing Linux has comes close. Enough said.
iTunes. Rhythmbox has the look and feel, but still won't playback mp3's gaplessly when the necessary metadata is present. It can do gapless with vorbis, but I'm not re-encoding my entire library from scratch to do something iTunes already does, not to mention having files that won't play on common music players. Amarok might have worked out, except when it locks up every time you import your music library, a known limitation the writers have acknowledged but refuse to fix, simply saying their player wasn't meant to handle that many tracks. (it's not a bug, it's a feature!) MPD sounds fantastic, but the limitations of the available frontends and the configuration hassle leave something to be desired.
Dozens of games. Stupid Microsoft and their DirectX... and don't tell me about virtualization and wine, it's either native or GTFO. Games crash enough and lag enough running on Windows without having another layer of configuration and fail to screw it up. I'm more of a console gamer anyway but still...
Abobe Flash Player. It works... sort of... almost... until you fullscreen and it makes Firefox just up and quit. Fail. I'm pretty sure that's Adobe's fault, though.
UPnP/DLNA Server software. There's plenty of software to do this, including mediatomb, mythtv, ushare, and so on. I have yet to find one solution that doesn't cost money that works with my Xbox 360, despite spending days trying every technique I can find to make them work. If I'm going to buy a "binary blob" just to get a service working without having to spend ridiculous amounts of time in the command line and actually have it not work then I'll buy a copy of Windows and get a freeware program that's easy to use and configure. I'm sure I could get it to work under Linux, but why should I have to spend all that time figuring it out when I could be spending it watching stuff on my 360.
I love my Linux Box; it's stable, secure, and fast. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Linux on the desktop, but when Windows can do multimedia without all the bullshit required to make Linux do the same thing and then in some cases have Windows do it better, it's no wonder the only success Linux has seen is on servers and netbooks. Long story short, games and multimedia suck on Linux.
Currently running Ubuntu 9.04, if you wanted to know.
Right, its ok to make drugs illegal. Its ok to have anti-sodomy laws. Its ok to have laws that stop two people that love one another from getting married.
No, it isn't ok. It's total bullshit. In this country, we don't need health care reform or tax reform or patent reform, we need government reform. Nothing less than a well-written amendment to our constitution could ever fix the problem, either. In this country, you should have the right to do anything you damn well please, so long as what you do does not directly harm another or infringe another's right to do whatever the hell they want to do. And it should never be the government's place to decide what you're allowed to do with or put into your body. Furthermore, these rights should never be restricted based on whether or not anyone finds any action taken by anyone offensive or inappropriate, unless said action is meant to directly affect another in a negative or hurtful manner, such as harassment or slander or assault.
My emphasis on the word "directly" here is important; people seem to think that because they don't like something, there ought to be a law to stop it or impede it. That's a load of bullshit, too. If two people of the same sex get married, it has absolutely no effect on you other than if you think it's weird or wrong. If a person uses drugs and fucks up their life, it was their life to fuck up; as for the people they hurt because of their drug abuse, yes, that's something they can be held accountable for and the law should reflect that, just like it does with drinking alcohol and driving. If a person wants to ask you if you found Jesus, that's their right, just like it's your right to tell them to fuck off. And banning and taxing food products or even drugs over health concerns? So long as the consumer knows the risks, it should be their choice. None of these these things directly affect anyone except those who choose to do them, and they only reason there should ever be a law for anything is to ensure no real harm comes to an individual because of another individual's direct action against them.
This country has a lot of issues it needs to resolve and this would by no means fix them all, but it would be a good step in the right direction. Instead of relying on laws to stop something people don't like even if it doesn't affect them, they can just deal with it; it's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be.
Guess I won't upgrade if this is what they want to do, or perhaps this would be a good time for a fork... either way, I don't particularly care for the way all this new software keeps getting stripped of conventional features or hides them for the sake of new, flashy interfaces that merely serve as a way to slow everything the hell down. iTunes and Cover Flow, while pretty, are annoying as hell, and Apple's Safari browser got that nasty crap added to it not too long ago, too. And it's all sorts of a pain to disable it. All I know is I hope Firefox doesn't go down the same route.
If you live where I live, then there are several Starbucks within a few hundred meters radius.
If that's the case one might argue that you don't need a web browser to tell you where to find a Starbucks. You should be able to see one.
Middle click opens a bookmark in a new tab.
If I had mod points, I'd mod this informative just because I didn't know that. Considering I've subjected myself to the right click menu for that function for well over a year, this information is quite helpful!
They are in our past and present, we are just not in that dimension. Time travel to the past would lead you to another dimension but would never alter the past we have presently lived. We will never see time travel in our past and our current present. Our future is a different story since the path we are traveling can still be altered.
Didn't I see something like this on Dragonball Z?
Oh crap, here come the mods with that really big stick again...*ducks for cover*
Contra is unplayable without the Konami Code because it was originally an arcade game designed to eat all of your quarters by being difficult as hell. There's no way to stick more quarters in an NES to get more tries, so the code is the only way to go if you don't have m4d 1337 ski11z.
Funny as this is, I do like my buttons. As far as running and jumping in a video game goes, I'd rather hold down the B button and press the A button as necessary. How would this be accomplished on Natal? My first guess involves the Power Pad for the NES. No thanks, I looked stupid enough doing that when I was eight.
Don't get me wrong, I like motion control; I find the Wii remote to be intuitive and easy to learn and control, but at least it has buttons and triggers. It looks to me as though using Natal would be like shooting a gun without a trigger, or typing on a keyboard without buttons. How can you know for sure you pressed anything without tactile feedback? Without buttons to press, control in a lot of games would become sloppy or unmanageable. Fighting games like Street Fighter are right out, Same for FPS games like Halo, as well. And forget about any type of platformer or action title.
Obviously Natal has the potential to bring a new class of motion control games to the market, but it's not a replacement for a controller for traditional gaming, no matter how impressive it's capabilities are. Nintendo has a better balance in it's control scheme, IMHO, as it has the best of both worlds. It can do a game like Mario or Zelda or Call of Duty where the Natal system would prove more difficult to use, yet also allows for intuitive motion gaming experiences like Wii Sports' and Wii Play's various games.
Of course, I can't see Microsoft actually implementing a control scheme that doesn't involve users spending $40 or more to add additional player capability to their console, not to mention optional rechargeable battery packs and charge cables. Last I checked, Microsoft likes money.
I said it before and ill say it again I don't think the home user needs a personal printer
Two words: Character Sheets.
My only maxim in life is to question everything. Do you really think Apple would go out of business by selling their OS to everyone? Is Apple dependent on Mac sales like they were when they first licensed clones? Do you think what was true back when Apple first tried licensing clones is true now? What has changed since then? Does everybody saying the same thing make it true or untrue? Or are those people merely sharing an opinion?
You ask for proof to a hypothesis that hasn't been tested, and assume you have proof to the contrary even though the control conditions are different than before. Jobs himself cited Apple's dependency on computer sales as the undoing of the clone program, and now, courtesy of the iPod, the iPhone, and the iTunes store, that dependency no longer exists. Those facts you cited don't apply to the current scenario; it was Jobs' opinion that it was not possible to succeed in licensing Mac OS, but times have changed and I feel that it would be worth their while to try again. I can't prove whether it would work or not but it looks really good on paper. If you want proof, I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if Apple gives it another shot, so it's really up to them to find out.
At any rate, I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I questioned everything I could, looked into every angle presented, and came to my own conclusion based on reason, logic, and google.com; as I said, I've heard all these arguments before, over the last two years, and it seems no one can offer anything fresh to make me question my opinion on the matter. I think Apple stands to make more money overall licensing Mac OS X for PCs than not and I think not offering Mac OS X for PCs is their way of forcing hardware sales on consumers who want to run Mac OS X instead of Windows, even though Mac OS X sold by itself has a higher profit margin even if offered at an OEM discount, due to the inherent nature of how any software's profit margin increases for each copy sold, and volume sales to PC users and vendors over time would net enough profit to more than make up for any possible loss, if any, incurred in hardware sales as well as increasing their customer base dramatically, creating further sales potential and strengthening the Apple brand as a whole; take it with a grain of salt if you must, but that's just my opinion. You are entitled to have your own.
You don't really care if Apple were to offer OS X for any PC, you'd just build a hackitosh and pirate OS X.
I wouldn't have even tried to voice my opinion at all if this were the case. Why would I even bother to put in my two cents if I didn't even care? Here, pay close attention, I would buy Mac OS X if it was offered for use on computers other than ones Apple makes, but since they don't, I won't. And I already built a PC that runs Mac OS X and I already pirated it because buying it doesn't give me the right to use it on my machine. My act of using Mac OS X without paying for is an act of protest, whether you want to believe it or not. If I were to pay for it, as some people do even though they are still violating the EULA by installing it on a non-Apple machine, there would be no incentive for Apple to change said EULA so I could buy a copy and legally use it. The way it stands, it shows that I'm interested in Mac OS X, but that I believe their software and license are being unfairly leveraged to make me buy hardware I don't want. You can rest assured the moment that Apple offers PC users and system builders the ability to install Mac OS X on their systems without breaking their license I'll be on their web site to buy it. Maybe a System Builders version, or something like that. They could make it only for hobbyists if they're so worried about PC vendors stealing their business. They don't even have to support it, I just want to use it LEGALLY without buying a computer I don't want. Like I said, they will most likely release it eventually, I just wish it would happen before I give up and move to Ubuntu.
On another note, as of this moment, I shall no longer use the word hackintosh, as it implies to the average joe that the act of using software as the user sees fit is a crime, a view that I'm sure most slashdotters would agree is detrimental to the idea of user rights.
Except most people don't install OSes. While MS sells OS upgrades most people use the OS that was installed on their PC when they got it.
Yeah, and if they got a PC they wanted with Mac OS installed on it, they would use it. They might even choose it if they had the option to get it instead of Windows or Linux, but PC vendors can't even offer it. And so what if most customers aren't "tech savvy" enough to install their own OS? I am, and a lot of people are. Almost every slashdot user, for example. It's not like the installers are complicated anymore, either. Even for those who don't want to fiddle with it, they know someone who can do it for them, most likely for free.
So then you pirated OS X?
Yes, I did. No reason to pay for it if I'm just violating their EULA anyway and I don't own a Mac that can run it legitimately. I would have paid for it if only for those minor issues. And I don't want to buy a copy with a Mac to run it on; my PC is better. Not all PCs are better, but mine is. And if for some reason Apple decided to come after me for it, I'll just boot into Ubuntu, my second choice, and wash my hands of them altogether. What's with this question anyway, did you expect me to lie or just get scared? I know what I said and I know if some Apple exec reads it he'll be all upset about it. It's not like I'm the only one who's doing the exact same thing for the very reasons I've outlined here, I'm just not afraid to tell it like it is. I kinda hope one does, maybe they could take a hint and open the licensing a bit. I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Apple did license Mac clones and lost money on it.
Proving my suggestion that the only reason people buy their hardware is because Mac OS is on it in the first place. They limit what systems it can be installed on only because they feel they can't compete in the open market, which is silly if their hardware is so great. Yeah, the notebooks are okay, but when it comes to desktops, the fact is they have no interest in making hardware suitable for power users that doesn't require you to rob half a dozen banking establishments to get the monetary funds necessary to acquire it. I've used a real Mac Pro, mind you, and I can tell you without a doubt my system is just as capable as said system, and it set me back a grand total of $850 shipped when I bought it. The Mac Pro a good machine, but not $2500+ good. The rest of their models are too limited for me; I don't want to send in my machine because the optical drive stopped working, I want to either go to best buy and buy a new one and put it in the same day, or take one from my old computer and put that one in the same day. Call me old fashioned, but I like to fix my own stuff. Lots of people do.
More to the point, they lost money on licensing Mac clones because of bad management in the first place. They only let a select number of vendors make them, not nearly enough to make up the difference in loss of hardware sales, a loss which wouldn't have been so bad had they offered reasonable competition on the hardware front. In short, the other guys made faster systems that were cheaper. This is still true today; the only difference is now you can't get Mac OS on anything but an Apple. This forces you to buy their hardware if you want their OS, which I think is ridiculous since it's apparent that they could reasonably let you use it on any PC you wanted to. Now if every PC vendor offered Mac OS X then Apple would make enough money off of licensing and software sales where it wouldn't matter if customers bought their hardware or not. We know this will work because Microsoft does it. And don't tell me nearly every PC vendor on the planet wouldn't love to have something to offer other than Vista or Linux. People know what Mac OS is, Apple's countless TV ads have seen to that. Linux is great, but the masses don't really know or haven't heard enough about it to try it, so unless a bunch of Linux developers want to pool toge
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux or even Windows on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Because they don't like Apple hardware; either it's too limited for their needs (iMac, Mac Mini) or it's simply not competitively priced to what they can build or buy from elsewhere (Mac Pro, Mac Book).
There is obviously a market for people who want Mac OS for different hardware. This is an example of a company not giving a damn about what customers want, and selling only what they want you to have. They don't want to sell Mac OS for regular PCs because of Steve Jobs' egotistical, head-up-his-ass view that his company needs to micro manage the Mac environment because every other computer company is a piece of crap on a dry highway in comparison and they'll just screw up his precious Mac OS with their "inferior" hardware.
I use Mac OS X on a PC because I feel it is the best OS software for my needs, on the best hardware for my needs. Apple doesn't see a dime from it because I'm not going to buy a retail disc with a license agreement that won't let me install it on what I want to. And I'm not going to until they let everyone do it. They can talk all day about losing money in their hardware division if they allow PCs to use Mac OS X; maybe if Mac OS is the only reason your computers sell, your hardware isn't that great to begin with. You know why Macs don't take over the market? Because people buy computers from other companies instead, and they use any OS except Mac OS X because that's what comes with the hardware they do buy. They don't have the option to use Mac OS X even though they might want to, so they don't. Only a small amount of people are willing to purchase Apple hardware in order to get Mac OS X. Those are Apple's current customer base. Everyone else is a potential customer that Apple doesn't have in their customer base. I'll go out on a limb and say the latter outnumber the former by a wide margin.
Apple has three things potential customers want: iPods, iTunes, and Mac OS X. Forcing someone to buy a whole computer instead of just the OS software they want is a dirty way to push your hardware sales. And it's not even working very well.
Of course, this is Apple, all Apple hardware is going to me more expensive then typical PC hardware.
Not if they use hackintoshes.
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Because they don't like Apple hardware; either it's too limited for their needs (iMac, Mac Mini) or it's simply not competitively priced to what they can build or buy from elsewhere (Mac Pro).
And the real GNU/Linux enthusiasts I know that P&P play World of Darkness.
Actually, my group has been playing Rifts lately, but we're power gaming jackasses.
Good old C. Nothing beats C. Also C++. The important thing to remember is once you develop your skills in one language, it's easy to reapply those skills when learning the next. So really, once you master a programming language you will find you can do just about anything in any other language just by learning the syntax and keyword structure. My point is, your design skills should come first. And C or C++ are good places to develop those skills.
The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to excessive TV viewing.
This seems more accurate.
That "you can get more money with a lawyer" thing is exactly why the court systems are bogged up with frivolous lawsuits in the first place. It's the new American mentality and I can't stand it. This guy actually had a legitimate reason to sue, actually had the system work for him and give him his due, and all anyone can say is "He's an idiot for not having a lawyer to get him more money."
Just because the company infringing on his work was an asshat about it doesn't mean the photographer has to be. To do so would make him just like the RIAA we all despise. He got way more money than he lost from the infringement as it is; I'm certain stock photo rights do not amount anywhere close to $19,462. He only got that much because he had to go through all the BS to get what he deserved in the first place, and I'm sure he's more than satisfied with the award given. That "get more money and stick 'em with attorney fees" thing sounds downright malicious to me. Isn't it enough that the company was held liable for their use of the photograph in the first place? Nope, we gotta teach those bastards a lesson.
It wouldn't seem like such a good idea to you folks if you got sued, lost, and had to pay the awarded judgment, attorney's fees for yourself AND for the party suing you. Of course, you aren't an infringer of copyright, are you? Of course you're not.
Yeah, there is something seriously wrong with this list...
40. WarioWare, Inc.
54. Chrono Trigger
There aren't words for how dumb this is. Sure, not everyone likes RPGs, but to claim that there are more readers of Edge that prefer the equivalency of first-party shovelware over a game oft spoke of in legends is tantamount to saying, "All Edge readers are either ten years old, are masochists, or have the mental capacity of a pet rock."
Chrono Trigger had state of the art, anime-style graphics, an engaging storyline involving time travel with a variety of colorful characters, a battle system that blended seamlessly with exploration and allowed party members to combine their techniques for more powerful attacks, over a dozen multiple endings, and a bunch of minigames to boot.
WarioWare has... a bunch of minigames.
I'll admit WarioWare has a certain appeal, which for me was about 20 to 30 minutes. As for Chrono Trigger, I don't think I can count the number of hours I've spent playing it, though I think I've completed the game at least thirty times.
I figure my gameplay is directly proportional to how much effort and resources went into the developement of each title. Not that this is always the case; some of us may remember a well-resourced effort by John Romero to make himself a prominent figure in the gaming scene again, only to release Daikatana, the biggest steampile of FPS ever to grace a computer monitor. But I digress.
The reality check here is that this list of "best video games ever" was created by soliciting an opinion from people who read a magazine to figure out what the "best video games ever" are. A far better source for said list would be a carefully selected group of experienced gamers who've played a majority of the titles in existance so that they can leverage an opinion that's not total crap.
You would think the staff at Edge would be a sufficient panel of experts on this matter, however, this is not the case because no gaming magazine in their right mind would allow a list derived from their readers to represent the publications' opinion in this fashion. If I were them, I would've emphasised that these are the opinions of Edge readers' and that this is not necessarily the opinion of Edge or it's staff. As it stands, Edge has let themselves look like they've got their heads tucked in their backsides.
An honest opinion.
She needs yet another nice warm cup of STFU.