Obviously you haven't played Portal. I didn't think it was a huge deal at first, because the main gameplay element (portals) was as expected.
What was not expected was the personality and mannerisms of GlaDOS, the computer running the tests. That pretty much is what changed the game (for me) from being a novel puzzle game into a very entertaining 6-8 hours of gameplay.
It's pretty much up to your business....what must run 24/7, what systems are likely to get accessed in off hours, and how likely is that, and how critical are they? With redundant systems, can there be any downtime while they are powered up, or should it be immediate failover? If you use virtualization the redundancy should be easier to manage in many cases...you may be able to immediately offload to running systems and power up backup systems and then bring the VMs up there.
It's hard to get very specific without knowing your business and what you are running and what the needs are.
"Web traffic numbers can't be used as a very accurate source of how many different people actually use a browser, because people that use Firefox, in general, will visit many more web pages than a casual user who has never heard of it."
Read what I posted. The 20% nmber is representative of hits to websites. That does not mean that 20% of people are using Firefox. That means 20% of traffic is from Firefox. There are a lot of casual internet users who only are on a few hours a week. Heck some older folks I know only use a web browser when they get a link in an e-mail.
People who do more web browsing are more likely to be using Firefox. Ever hear of the 80/20 rule? It's a business term that states 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers. A similar concept can be applied to the web (although I wouldn't use such extreme numbers). A smaller number of people generate a disproportionate amount of internet traffic. It will vary based on where you ask (location, region/country), but I would bet you a sizable wad of cash that overall you won't see 2 out of 10 people know what Firefox is. And probably half of them don't even know what Internet Explorer is either, even though they use it.
As far as other browsers go, I generally consider Opera to be about equal to FF, but I primarily care about speed...which they are very close in that respect now that FF3 has stepped up the speed (FF2 was sometimes even slower than IE...ick). They both have other pluses and minuses, so it really depends on what you are looking for. Chrome is a very beta product, but it has potential...I like the direciton it, and yes, even IE8 are heading..a multi-threaded browser that actually utlizes my CPU and RAM (assuming it delivers increased performance on the web).
Firefox, as far as the general public is concerned, is still not a 'big guy'. Web traffic numbers can't be used as a very accurate source of how many different people actually use a browser, because people that use Firefox, in general, will visit many more web pages than a casual user who has never heard of it. I can guarantee you if I went around the office here and asked people what Firefox was, at least 9 out of 10 wouln't have even heard of it, and much of the remainder who actually know what it is may not use it. Hell I know for sure at least half of them don't even know what Internet Explorer is...it's just 'The Internet' to them. "Open up Internet Explorer and try to go to Google.com." "Explorer what?"
When Google put the big 'Download Chrome' thing on their homepage for a few days, it got a few extra casual users aware of alternate browsers. Which, as the article stated, increased Opera downloads....and I bet it increased Firefox downloads as well.
It only happens a couple time a month or so (~100 client PCs). More of an annoyance than a real problem, as a reboot fixes it. I have looked it up before and found a few people that run into it also...it must be something in our environment messing with it, although there is nothing I would consider unusual about it at all...it has persisted since version 9. We were running unmanaged until about 2 years ago, and it occurred both before and after that, and this has affected 2k, XP and Vista PCs.
The main reasons we are ditching it are because A) It has missed viruses caught by NOD32 and B) It also consumes more resources while missing viruses.
I'll see it using anywhere from 50-75MB of RAM on a typical system, whereas NOD32 uses 10-20 (although on a 64-bt OS it is close to 50). And Symantec will also consume a few extra CPU cycles as it will occasionally zap a couple percentage points of the CPU under normal idle use. On most systems it's not a big deal, but we have some older machines (late P3 era, yes I'd love to replace them but our company is a private LLC owned by some real tightwads) that it can impact noticably.
Also, NOD32 is about 20% cheaper, and I like the management interface better, it offers a lot more customization than Symantec's does.
Read my reply to another post...I am the admin, it's not a scheduled scan, I think it has something to do with the e-mail scan hanging, but it doesn't happen frequently enough to bother figuring out exactly what it is.
I use my personal subscription just fine with Gmail (although it's been ~18 months since I renewed with it).
I'll give Avira a trial run on one of my systems. As good as NOD32 is, nothing is perfect and it's always good to see if somehting new is better than what you have.
I AM the admin. It's a managed setup and it's set to scan daily at 1 AM and not reattempt a failed scan, yet I still run into this probably a few times a month where someone says "My computer is really slow" (Okay that happens daily) and I go and check, and there's good ol' Rtvscan.exe sucking up 50% CPU for no apparent reason. I *think* it's the e-mail scanning that is causing it, but it doesn't happen frequently enough for me to bother troubleshooting it. Just enough to be annoying.
Not to mention, even when it's behaving, it's still sucking 50-75MB of RAM, which can noticably affect performance on our older machines in the production areas.
I agree on Avast! if you have to be free, but my personal favorite is Eset's NOD32 (www.eset.com). $40 MSRP (but you can find it cheaper if you look around). This is the most efficient (very very small memory footprint) and effective antivirus I have ever used. We use Symantec Corporate where I work (but are switching once our subscription runs out) and this has picked up several viruses on PCs that Symantec missed. Not to mention the fact that Symantec likes to do in-depth scanning every once in a while in the middle of the day for no apparent reason and starts consuming 100MB+ of RAM and hits 50% CPU utilization.
Agree on the web-based. Make it work with most mobile browsers, and it can also work from a desktop. Hell it could even run from standard (or non-standard, rather) phones with simple browsers if it's friendly enough.
And fooey on you for excluding Windows Mobile...I know hating Microsoft is the popular thing to do around here, but you should give credit where it's due. It's the best OS Microsoft has ever made. Which isn't saying much, but I like it because it has the best variety of apps and flexibility of any current mobile platform. I would bet Android will probably overtake it as my choice once it gets a better app selection and a version or two of maturity, as it's definately more flexible, but right now WinMo is my pick, despite its quirks. *Goes off to soft-reset his phone.*
"Presumably no attacks on Microsoft are planned at this time."
See, they have nothing to worry about. The New York Times is a completely trustworthy and honest news source. Besides, the radar installed to guide their SAM missles wouldn't detect the decommissioned F-117 they bought that didn't make the news. (Assuming the fire control software doesn't bluescreen anyway).
Personally I think it's a great idea. Make DRM invisible. Going by our current level of cloaking technology, we could make it invisible by removing it completely. I'm all for it.
Like I said...it's a 15" laptop. I'd gladly carry around extra weight for the increased performance, screen size, and cost savings.
But if I wanted to, I could go find a lighter laptop than the MB that is maybe a bit weaker (and probably cheaper, too). The MB is a good balance of weight and performance, I'll give it that. But depending on your use, there are typically better options for a better price. Someone who needs the performance would probably be willing to sacrifice some weight. Someone looking for a light laptop would probably be willing to sacrifice some performance.
And even if you are looking for the balance, there are somewhat cheaper options, as that article indicated. The price premium isn't too bad, but it still exists. And really, this all kind of revolves around a bigger problem anyway...OS X's biggest flaw: being locked into a single hardware vendor. You're stuck with their limited options...no competition of hardware, prices, sizes, design*, etc. If they really want OSX to become a major market force, they're going to have to open up. I'm kind of interested to see how this Phystar thing plays out. They probably don't have a chance, but who knows.
*-Side note on the deisgn: I was already getting a little bored with the Aluminum...even though it looked nice, just a little bland for my tastes. But then they added that fugly black bezel...bleh.
Generally getting a death threat that you believe is serious enough to call the FBI about certainly has some sort of potentially interesting backstory.
Diablo 3 DLC-Yes, it's not confirmed yet. The problem is they are thinking about additional revenue streams like this. IMHO, a slippery slope to getting you to pay for any and all extra content aside from bug fixes
Starcraft 3-As long as they charge expansion prices for additional campaigns, I'll agree with you. Brood War added the same amount of mission content on the same enging, and cost less when it came out (but it did require the additional game).
WotLK-Someone else beat me to this...WoWInsider has the details. This is not the barbershop feature. This was something someone spotted hiding in WotLK UI code, and was confirmed at Blizzcon when an employee was confronted about it. New option, shows at character select.
Like I said, I still like and will continue to buy Blizzard games...as long as they are the masterpieces of gaming that I've come to expect. I just pessimistic that this will put them on the path of other developers...favoring the bottom line over delivering the best gaming experience to their customers.
I've seen a very different evolution with this latest round of titles.
The evolution of greed.
I don't know if it's Activision, WoW's success, or what, but I don't like this trend that I'm seeing:
Diablo 3- Paid Downloadable Content
Starcraft 2- 3 Separate boxes to buy
WotLK- Paid character appearance enhancements
I'll still buy them (not WotLK, stopped playing WoW when BC launched). Now that I am finished with college and have a good job, the cost is no big deal. But I stated playing Blizzard games many years go, sometime around the launch of Diablo I. Back then I saved my $5/week allowance to buy those games. Then I got a part time job, and bying the games was a little easier, but it still wasn't a lot of cash. I think Blizzard may alienate a decent segment of their audience with these decisions. What was wrong with the old model? Their games made a mint at regular price because they sell so many copies. Hell you can still buy the Starcraft and Diablo II battle chests at Wal-Mart.
I just really hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
Several other players can have volume limits. My Creative ZEN for example is one (The max volume is actually a little too quiet, to the point it's hard to hear movies on an airplane, even with active noice cancelling headphones). Supposedly European firmware is worse. I am pretty sure some Sansa models can be limited as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you haven't played Portal. I didn't think it was a huge deal at first, because the main gameplay element (portals) was as expected.
What was not expected was the personality and mannerisms of GlaDOS, the computer running the tests. That pretty much is what changed the game (for me) from being a novel puzzle game into a very entertaining 6-8 hours of gameplay.
It's pretty much up to your business....what must run 24/7, what systems are likely to get accessed in off hours, and how likely is that, and how critical are they? With redundant systems, can there be any downtime while they are powered up, or should it be immediate failover? If you use virtualization the redundancy should be easier to manage in many cases...you may be able to immediately offload to running systems and power up backup systems and then bring the VMs up there.
It's hard to get very specific without knowing your business and what you are running and what the needs are.
"Web traffic numbers can't be used as a very accurate source of how many different people actually use a browser, because people that use Firefox, in general, will visit many more web pages than a casual user who has never heard of it."
Read what I posted. The 20% nmber is representative of hits to websites. That does not mean that 20% of people are using Firefox. That means 20% of traffic is from Firefox. There are a lot of casual internet users who only are on a few hours a week. Heck some older folks I know only use a web browser when they get a link in an e-mail.
People who do more web browsing are more likely to be using Firefox. Ever hear of the 80/20 rule? It's a business term that states 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers. A similar concept can be applied to the web (although I wouldn't use such extreme numbers). A smaller number of people generate a disproportionate amount of internet traffic. It will vary based on where you ask (location, region/country), but I would bet you a sizable wad of cash that overall you won't see 2 out of 10 people know what Firefox is. And probably half of them don't even know what Internet Explorer is either, even though they use it.
As far as other browsers go, I generally consider Opera to be about equal to FF, but I primarily care about speed...which they are very close in that respect now that FF3 has stepped up the speed (FF2 was sometimes even slower than IE...ick). They both have other pluses and minuses, so it really depends on what you are looking for. Chrome is a very beta product, but it has potential...I like the direciton it, and yes, even IE8 are heading..a multi-threaded browser that actually utlizes my CPU and RAM (assuming it delivers increased performance on the web).
"did google base chrome on safari code?"
Yeah, that's what the whole WebKit thing means.
Firefox, as far as the general public is concerned, is still not a 'big guy'. Web traffic numbers can't be used as a very accurate source of how many different people actually use a browser, because people that use Firefox, in general, will visit many more web pages than a casual user who has never heard of it. I can guarantee you if I went around the office here and asked people what Firefox was, at least 9 out of 10 wouln't have even heard of it, and much of the remainder who actually know what it is may not use it. Hell I know for sure at least half of them don't even know what Internet Explorer is...it's just 'The Internet' to them. "Open up Internet Explorer and try to go to Google.com." "Explorer what?"
When Google put the big 'Download Chrome' thing on their homepage for a few days, it got a few extra casual users aware of alternate browsers. Which, as the article stated, increased Opera downloads....and I bet it increased Firefox downloads as well.
"I bet it means even less to all of us in America where every major data center has a secret room where the government sniffs our packets."
Conspiracy theory much?
Nice to meet you too, but the name is not Joe, it's Destructozor, Master of Chaos. Now bow down and kiss my feet. And fetch me some brownies.
Of course with milk, you imbecile.
Who let regular users on Slashdot?
It only happens a couple time a month or so (~100 client PCs). More of an annoyance than a real problem, as a reboot fixes it. I have looked it up before and found a few people that run into it also...it must be something in our environment messing with it, although there is nothing I would consider unusual about it at all...it has persisted since version 9. We were running unmanaged until about 2 years ago, and it occurred both before and after that, and this has affected 2k, XP and Vista PCs.
The main reasons we are ditching it are because A) It has missed viruses caught by NOD32 and B) It also consumes more resources while missing viruses.
I'll see it using anywhere from 50-75MB of RAM on a typical system, whereas NOD32 uses 10-20 (although on a 64-bt OS it is close to 50). And Symantec will also consume a few extra CPU cycles as it will occasionally zap a couple percentage points of the CPU under normal idle use. On most systems it's not a big deal, but we have some older machines (late P3 era, yes I'd love to replace them but our company is a private LLC owned by some real tightwads) that it can impact noticably.
Also, NOD32 is about 20% cheaper, and I like the management interface better, it offers a lot more customization than Symantec's does.
Read my reply to another post...I am the admin, it's not a scheduled scan, I think it has something to do with the e-mail scan hanging, but it doesn't happen frequently enough to bother figuring out exactly what it is.
I use my personal subscription just fine with Gmail (although it's been ~18 months since I renewed with it).
I'll give Avira a trial run on one of my systems. As good as NOD32 is, nothing is perfect and it's always good to see if somehting new is better than what you have.
I AM the admin. It's a managed setup and it's set to scan daily at 1 AM and not reattempt a failed scan, yet I still run into this probably a few times a month where someone says "My computer is really slow" (Okay that happens daily) and I go and check, and there's good ol' Rtvscan.exe sucking up 50% CPU for no apparent reason. I *think* it's the e-mail scanning that is causing it, but it doesn't happen frequently enough for me to bother troubleshooting it. Just enough to be annoying.
Not to mention, even when it's behaving, it's still sucking 50-75MB of RAM, which can noticably affect performance on our older machines in the production areas.
I agree on Avast! if you have to be free, but my personal favorite is Eset's NOD32 (www.eset.com). $40 MSRP (but you can find it cheaper if you look around). This is the most efficient (very very small memory footprint) and effective antivirus I have ever used. We use Symantec Corporate where I work (but are switching once our subscription runs out) and this has picked up several viruses on PCs that Symantec missed. Not to mention the fact that Symantec likes to do in-depth scanning every once in a while in the middle of the day for no apparent reason and starts consuming 100MB+ of RAM and hits 50% CPU utilization.
It could grip it by the husks!
Agree on the web-based. Make it work with most mobile browsers, and it can also work from a desktop. Hell it could even run from standard (or non-standard, rather) phones with simple browsers if it's friendly enough.
And fooey on you for excluding Windows Mobile...I know hating Microsoft is the popular thing to do around here, but you should give credit where it's due. It's the best OS Microsoft has ever made. Which isn't saying much, but I like it because it has the best variety of apps and flexibility of any current mobile platform. I would bet Android will probably overtake it as my choice once it gets a better app selection and a version or two of maturity, as it's definately more flexible, but right now WinMo is my pick, despite its quirks. *Goes off to soft-reset his phone.*
RTFA:
"Presumably no attacks on Microsoft are planned at this time."
See, they have nothing to worry about. The New York Times is a completely trustworthy and honest news source. Besides, the radar installed to guide their SAM missles wouldn't detect the decommissioned F-117 they bought that didn't make the news. (Assuming the fire control software doesn't bluescreen anyway).
Personally I think it's a great idea. Make DRM invisible. Going by our current level of cloaking technology, we could make it invisible by removing it completely. I'm all for it.
Like I said...it's a 15" laptop. I'd gladly carry around extra weight for the increased performance, screen size, and cost savings.
But if I wanted to, I could go find a lighter laptop than the MB that is maybe a bit weaker (and probably cheaper, too). The MB is a good balance of weight and performance, I'll give it that. But depending on your use, there are typically better options for a better price. Someone who needs the performance would probably be willing to sacrifice some weight. Someone looking for a light laptop would probably be willing to sacrifice some performance.
And even if you are looking for the balance, there are somewhat cheaper options, as that article indicated. The price premium isn't too bad, but it still exists. And really, this all kind of revolves around a bigger problem anyway...OS X's biggest flaw: being locked into a single hardware vendor. You're stuck with their limited options...no competition of hardware, prices, sizes, design*, etc. If they really want OSX to become a major market force, they're going to have to open up. I'm kind of interested to see how this Phystar thing plays out. They probably don't have a chance, but who knows.
*-Side note on the deisgn: I was already getting a little bored with the Aluminum...even though it looked nice, just a little bland for my tastes. But then they added that fugly black bezel...bleh.
Generally getting a death threat that you believe is serious enough to call the FBI about certainly has some sort of potentially interesting backstory.
Hell, just look at this.
:-(
$200 cheaper, better CPU, Video card, larger hard drive, and twice the RAM. But no fany aluminum case
It is 15" instead of 13" though...
Here is the searched I used on Newegg...pulls all laptops with the same specs or better than the MacBook (most of them are better).
Probably...something while technically possible, is not very feasible for practical use.
I really just posted to comment on your sig. I think there is a worse oxymoron: Military Intelligence
Yeah, you get to work on recoding every game out there to play on all platforms.
Moron.
Actually MMOs, while being played, use a very small amount of bandwidth.
Diablo 3 DLC-Yes, it's not confirmed yet. The problem is they are thinking about additional revenue streams like this. IMHO, a slippery slope to getting you to pay for any and all extra content aside from bug fixes
Starcraft 3-As long as they charge expansion prices for additional campaigns, I'll agree with you. Brood War added the same amount of mission content on the same enging, and cost less when it came out (but it did require the additional game).
WotLK-Someone else beat me to this...WoWInsider has the details. This is not the barbershop feature. This was something someone spotted hiding in WotLK UI code, and was confirmed at Blizzcon when an employee was confronted about it. New option, shows at character select.
Like I said, I still like and will continue to buy Blizzard games...as long as they are the masterpieces of gaming that I've come to expect. I just pessimistic that this will put them on the path of other developers...favoring the bottom line over delivering the best gaming experience to their customers.
I've seen a very different evolution with this latest round of titles.
The evolution of greed.
I don't know if it's Activision, WoW's success, or what, but I don't like this trend that I'm seeing:
Diablo 3- Paid Downloadable Content
Starcraft 2- 3 Separate boxes to buy
WotLK- Paid character appearance enhancements
I'll still buy them (not WotLK, stopped playing WoW when BC launched). Now that I am finished with college and have a good job, the cost is no big deal. But I stated playing Blizzard games many years go, sometime around the launch of Diablo I. Back then I saved my $5/week allowance to buy those games. Then I got a part time job, and bying the games was a little easier, but it still wasn't a lot of cash. I think Blizzard may alienate a decent segment of their audience with these decisions. What was wrong with the old model? Their games made a mint at regular price because they sell so many copies. Hell you can still buy the Starcraft and Diablo II battle chests at Wal-Mart.
I just really hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
Several other players can have volume limits. My Creative ZEN for example is one (The max volume is actually a little too quiet, to the point it's hard to hear movies on an airplane, even with active noice cancelling headphones). Supposedly European firmware is worse. I am pretty sure some Sansa models can be limited as well.