I understand what you mean. Apple hardware seems as good or (often) better than PC hardware, and their OS is amazing. When I buy a new computer it will be a Mac. It's too bad they don't get more customers (which they deserve considering their OS has, among other things, basically no viruses) but when you can buy a new PC from Dell for $500 and the lowest end mac is $700 or so, they'll have a hard time (despite the fact that a $700 Mac is better than basically any $700 PC if you consider what's included in software and such). Also, where are the ads? A few for the iPod, a few for the G5 when it first came out, otherwise there is NO advertising for Macs that I see (compared to Dell, HP, Best Buy, and tons of other places advertising PCs).
As for iTunes/QuickTime being slower on windows, I think that they are probably doing everything themselves (even low-level stuff like "did the user click this button" because then they can make things look exactly like they want) and that's what's causing the slowness. That's my only complaint about iTunes and QT, because otherwise they (especially iTunes) are great pieces of software.
Huh? Sony let amatures develop for the PS 1 with the Net Yahorzee (probably spelled wrong). Sony lets amatures develop for the PS 2 with the Linux kit. It's in Sony's interests to get people familiar with programming their systems so they'll have more tallent to make more games.
As for the "crapware" argument, there is tons of it for the PS1 and 2, you just don't see it at most major stores (unless it was released by EA, Activision, or some other big name). Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It's just that companies (both retailers and the console makers like Sony) have learned how to controll these problems better than the Atari days (which had nothing to learn from on such issues as it was the first "modern" console in many ways).
Give me a flat tax. No should be able to complain then. The rich would pay their 15% just like the poor. The poor should be happy because they know the rich are not only paying more (in pure $$$), but they also know that the rich aren't paying less (in %). The ritch would be happy because they aren't paying as much (as opposed to the >50% some pay now), and the middle and poor class are paying their fair share (not some 2% that some politician gave them for votes).
But it will never happen. The poor will complain that the rich got a MASSIVE tax cut (compared to that 50%, they did) and they will probably complain that they have to pay more. And because there are more people who aren't rich than who are rich, the system would never get passed. A simple, flat sales tax on EVERYTHING and no income tax of any kind would be the farest system, but it will never come to be thanks to politics, greed, and people unwilling to see past jealosy ("But now the rich guy gets even MORE money due to lower taxes").
I hate that argument. It's juvenile in my opinion. Here's my problems with it (that I can think of right now):
How you're going to IMPLEMENT it? The government would need to keep "bank accounts" for EVERYTHING. One for the war, one for road repair, one for the federal tea tasting bereau, one for medicare, and on and on and on. All that accounting and such would take TONS of time and money.
How would any new program get off the ground? Next to no one would aprove it for themselves because it would raise their taxes. And how do you keep things fair? Does everyone get medicare or only those who pay in? If it's only those who pay in then what good does it do the people it was created to help? If it helps everyone regardless of if they pay in or not then why should I pay in? It may be socially/morally responsible, but too many people are driven by the all mighty dollar to say yes to most things.
What about other things that are shared? I can't remember the correct term, but why should I pay for the fire department? If my neighbor pays then he'll have my house put out so it won't catch his on fire. Same thing with missle defense and other such things.
What good does it do ANYONE to opt out of road maintence? Even if you don't drive the products and services that you depend on use the nation's road network. And if you don't keep it up to date things get more expensive. And if it's old and cruddy then it's easier for people to get into accidents which will drive up insurance rates and use up more medicare money and such.
OK, you don't want to pay for the war. I think that's dumb, but no problem. So how do we handle that? Saddam is out of power thanks to people who support the war. But people who didn't support it still get the safety provided by getting rid of him (if you don't believe that, it's a philisophical point, prentend I'm talking abut Nazis or something else). So why should they benefit? Do we let Saddam free and give him a list of people he CAN attack because they support the war and if we never did it he would have been free to attack them? It makes no sense! This kind of thing is a common line that I hear from people (almost always Liberals) that are trying to prevent paying for something because they are "concience objectors" or something like that.
What happens when popular opinion is wrong and something important gets no funding? What if we had this system and no one funded WWII because they didn't want to get into it? What if they just wanted to pacify Japan after they attacked us? Just cower to everyone? In such a situation it's pretty clear that an action needs to be taken, but what do you do if you don't have the funding because most people don't want it?
Many (most?) things that the governement does are the kind of things that you can't realisticly sell to a single person (things that benefit multiple people even if only one person pays). The system may not be perfect, but it's far better than the idiotic system you're proposing.
I was reading a book the other day (Hello World: A Life in Ham Radio) and it talked about how DeBeers got their mines. In the 20s or 30s they bought all the mining rights in some country for the next 99 years for some pathetic little sum. Do they have other mines or what? Because if not won't they loose their rights in about 10-20 years? Anyone know? Thanks.
What are you TALKING ABOUT? This has been around in computers for years. How in the world did this get modded up? The NX bit is one thing and one thing only: a controll to tell the CPU if code from a specific page of memory can be executed or not. It doesn't tie software/hardware to a specific computer. It doesn't take away your rights to run any program you want. It doesn't make you have signed software. It SECURES your computer from things like buffer overflows by making it so that arbitrary executable code that might get put into memory through a buffer overflow can't be executed. This has nothing to do with TCPA, Palladium, DRM, or anything else like this. I hope the meta-moderators make those "Interesting" mods you got as unfair. You are either a troll or an idiot.
And AMD supports it first. They support it right now. Intel is dragging their feet on it. That's the reason I WILL be buying AMD and boycotting Intel (although there are others, this would be the main one).
Ignoring 64 bit-ness, why should a business upgrade to a Opteron/(whatever Intel calls theirs)? I think the NX bit is one of the best reasons ("But this hardware is MUCH harder to hack because blah blah blah"). I hope AMD points this out when the Intel processor shows up (although now would be a good time too). If I have a choice between two processors and it's either one with NX, or one with SSE5 (or whatever Intel adds) I'm going with NX because it's actually USEFULL now and not just in a few little special cases. It's usefull for almost ALL SOFTWARE.
Out of all the things to omit when copying x86-64, omitting NX is just dropping the ball.
I don't know how Disney could possibly rip it off and make it into a "Disney" movie and have it make any sense. It is SO far past something that could be easily turned into a little kid's movie with singing animals and such.
You know what, now I almost want them to do it just to see how utterly WEIRD it would be.
Game stop has some pre-owned bundles starting at $140 (although they don't have the network adaptor). I'd say get a PS2 and don't wait, because it's likely to be a LONG wait.
I agree with my parrent post to wain untill after E3 because prices are likely to change. And if a new system becomes $150, a used one is likely to get even cheaper.
Maximize - I heard the reason for this once. It had to do with why maximize was bad for some reason and the Mac way was actually better. Matter of opinion I guess. I like maximize too, but I could get past it. I see your point.
Advanced options - Many people don't need these. The option-click is a replacement for the right mouse button, which Macs lack (another design decision). Personally I would use a USB or bluetooth mouse with two buttons so it wouldn't bother me. That said, an "Advanced..." button would be nice if there isn't one.
Visual feedback - I'm not sure what you mean. The few seconds while the display warms up? If the entire boot process was just "black" that would be one thing, but a dialog comes up pretty soon. I don't see this as an issue.
Samba - They're trying. This is Microsoft's fault if you ask me.
When Samba dies - Now I think THIS one is a big problem. I hope they'll fix it in the next update/release. I've seen it and it can be very anoying.
Updates - This isn't OS X's fault, it's Apple's. They have a bit of a reputation for this. Best wait a day or two before installing updates to make sure no issues are found.
You've got some issues there and they all have some validity, but they are all quite minor for me (and probably most other people). Then again I was a Mac person before going to Windows (and later Linux) so some of that I'm used to.
Can anyone reply to this and explain the maximize thing? I don't have time to go search for it.
I'll bite. You do look like a troll and you seem to deserve your "(Score:3, Flamebait)" that you have as I type. I've used OS X and I think it's fantastic. Other than it uses the command key for most things instead of control, many things are the same.
Could you post a list (longer the better) of examples (more specific and common the better) of your gripes/problems? I'd love to know if you have them. You have to admit without any examples and with the language in your post it does... push buttons. You say you have a Mac (I'm assuming OS X) so you've probably used it more than me (I don't get to use it day to day, just occasionally) so you may have noticed things I havent.
So could you post some examples? Fix my ignorance and prove your point!
I agree, I LOVE the power that Linux gives you, but I think most people would agree it would be nice to have Linux to they point where you can just do it the "Aunt Tillie" way sometimes if it's faster/easier/etc. You don't always need that much controll, and some times it can hinder. I like the "make Linux easy enough for Grandma" movement, because I think it will give us the best of both worlds, and that will be one great OS.
Yes, that's true, but I think that he meant it at on a different level. You took it on more of an "UIs are eye candy" level. I think the meant it from the more practicle "let's get the Samba stuff working well before we start deciding which button goes where and how the dialogs should function."
But, in many areas, the base functionality is THERE in Linux. These kind of design issues are things that we'll see more and more of.
And I've done some UI (very little) and you're right. It is VERY hard. I don't blame people for just "hacking" a UI together to test things and move on.
That's exactly what I intend to do. I used Macs once (long ago, system 7 days on an LC II) and have followed them. But I have been a Windows user for day to day stuff due to superior hardware, games, cost, and many MANY other factors. In the last few years I was introducted to Linux and have come to love the unix environment for programing, just using the system (bash is a great shell), and customizability. That said, as much I like messing with Linux, it's just not there to be my day to day OS. I could use it, but there isn't enough benefit to switching for me right now.
But in a year or two I will need a new computer. My brother took the plunge at going back to a Mac a few years ago (during OS 9, before OS X). It was a nice little computer, but I planned to stick with Windows.
Then came OS X.
Not only does it look good (and the new things like expose have me drooling), but it's got unix under it. It runs GCC. It runs make. You don't need to run cygwin. It's got basically everything that I've come to love about Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'll never give up Linux, but for a main OS/platform, I'm going Mac when I get a new computer.
The biggest thing between OS X and Linux for my decision is the "cohesiveness". I like tinkering around in Linux and looking up how to get things to work. But my classes in college are taking up more and more of my time and so when I need to get a wireless adapter working, setup a remote printer, or anything else I'd like it to "just work". Maybe one or two little dialog boxes, but it's just nicer. I like that I can plug in hardware and it works without having to go hunt down a driver. I like that I can go buy a piece of software if I must. Other than Office, there really isn't much proprietary software I use anymore, but if I need a good web authoring package on Linux, I can find one or write one. I like the ability to go to Microcenter and buy Dreamweaver. There is also the games. There are not many games that I really want to play on the PC any more (consoles fill most of it) but the few I want usually come out on the Mac (and if they don't it's OK, I can borrow times on Windows).
I love Linux, but I don't have all sorts of time to fuss with things. That "just works" is something I really like the idea of. I have problems with things in Windows too, but they don't usually take as long. It's rare these days that I run into a Windows problem that takes me a LONG time that I wouldn't have with Linux.
None of that even mentions how I like Apple's designs and such. And the idea of a G5 processor makes me drool too.
Macs with OS X are the best of both worlds. The unix core and environment that I've come to love, with the ease of use and consistancy that something like Windows can show, plus that loverly Mac hardware.
I think that one of them (Koster?) was right when he basically said that it can't be done right now. We just don't know enough for have good enough technology to do much better than the FF style things. There really aren't any games that have that kind of thing unless it was put into the game specifically and written by a human (like in FF); or it was "interpreted" and basically added by the individual (like the the Sims). There aren't any games that actually create real attachments unless the designers specifically put things there.
I'd better quit before this becomes more circular.
Yes, I know it's actually "Animal Forest +" which was a sequel of "Animal Forest", but it's the only one that made it to the US so I don't count it as a sequel becase for 99% of US gamers, it isn't.
It was origional here in the US, so it doesn't count as a sequel is what I'm saying.
I think the big problem is that new games don't seem to sell. It doesn't matter how great it is, making a sequel to a hit is like free money. Let's look at some innovative games:
Pikmin - Don' think it sold well. Probably wouldn't have even been released if it wasn't a Miyamoto game. At least we'll get a sequel (a good thing). Maybe it will sell better, it deserves it.
Ico - Talked about this the other day. Looked great. Played great. Didn't sell very well.
Sly Cooper - FANTASTIC game, I don't think it sold very well. There will be a sequel, maybe it will sell better.
Animal Crossing - I was ADDICTED to this game for months. When I stopped playing, I felt like I abandonded all my friends. It was great. I hope the sequel makes it here.
I could think of many others. There are some that have another reason (for example many rythum games don't do too well in the US), but many were just great games that didn't do to well. I think a big part of the problem is that many parents buy games. So why risk their $50 or $60 on something the kid might not like when they know the kid has GTA3 or NBA 2k3 or some other game and they can just buy the sequel and the kid will almost certainly like it (even though it might not be that great).
There are many games out there, and many are fun. But personally I don't buy very many games (innovative or not). There are games that I've played and then thought "I wish I bought that", but I'm not going to because I've already beat the game. But far Far FAR more often the game wasn't that good (or terrible) or it was just short. I can't afford to take the chance to buy games. If games were $30, I would buy more, but a $60 for a new game you've got to be kidding me if you think I'll buy any games that look interesting. I think this is proven by the fact that I have about 5x as many GB/GBA games as most other consoles. Losing $25 or $30 on a game that looked fun (FF: Tactics was nice, but just not for me) isn't so bad. But if the games cost more, I wouldn't buy very many.
Sequels aren't always bad. Some are very innovative or really improve things (think GTA3 vs GTA2). As you can see above I'm eargly awaiting the sequels to many games. The problem is that some games get a sequel. Then they get another and another and before you know it you're on volume 10 of about the same thing. (Final Fantasy games don't count because each one is different, they're not true sequels (except X-2, which is almost "non-sequel" in it's own right)).
The end result of all this (and I think moving away from the razor blade model of video games would REALLY help) is that we get mostly sequels and remakes/collections and such.
I can't afford to take risks on innovative games. Of those above, I own Animal Crossing (because I rented it and got addicted to it and bought it) and Pikmin (because it looked fun and I trust Miyamoto). It's too risky.
Ford: The car for the suicideal maniac in you!
Ford: A car so hot it BURNS.
Ford: Keeping your hands warm when starting the car in the winter.
Ford: At least we fixed the tire problem!
Ford: Because there is such a thing as too safe.
Ford: Because we all love pyrotechnic shows.
It's called spin baby. It's only bad because they haven't thought of a good spin yet.
Yes, but it was part of another project, and it was something they needed. All to often what would happen (IMHO) if the government was asked to make standards now would be a big committe would be formed that would take recomendations for years, then argue for years, all while various groups lobby their own odd ideas.
It's one thing to have a group of engineers sit down to decide a standard. It's another to have a panel of engineers hear a bunch of companies argue why their product is better.
That's one thing that's always amazed me. While I realize that it's nice to introduce you brand to kids early (so they grow up thinking "if I want X, brand Y is the first that comes to mind), I'm always suprised at what I see.
I see car dealerships advertising themselves (not selling a specific car or brand, but the dealership chain) during kids shows. I've seen tampax commercials and such during kids shows. Or how many kids do you think need those medic-alert bracelts for when you fall down and can't get up? I've seen ads for diet centeres during kids shows. And when I say this stuff, I'm not talking shows aimed at LITTLE kids where a parrent is probably watching, but ads during shows for an 8-10 year old where there is a good chance the parrent isn't watching. I realise there are some versions where it can make sense, but all too often it's just... odd.
How many 10 year olds want to go see the latest "feel good movie of the year" (you know, something like "Radio" that they could care less about).
I also find the number of ads for kids products during adult shows (ER, etc) amazing, although I realize they're there because the parrents of the kids they are targeting are watching. Still seems odd to me though.
Slashdot Mirror
As for iTunes/QuickTime being slower on windows, I think that they are probably doing everything themselves (even low-level stuff like "did the user click this button" because then they can make things look exactly like they want) and that's what's causing the slowness. That's my only complaint about iTunes and QT, because otherwise they (especially iTunes) are great pieces of software.
As for the "crapware" argument, there is tons of it for the PS1 and 2, you just don't see it at most major stores (unless it was released by EA, Activision, or some other big name). Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It's just that companies (both retailers and the console makers like Sony) have learned how to controll these problems better than the Atari days (which had nothing to learn from on such issues as it was the first "modern" console in many ways).
Makes VHS vs Beta simple, huh? Let's hope most of this gets sorted out before it gets to most consumers.
That said, a pure flat income tax for EVERYONE NO MATTER WHAT is the ideal solution, if you ask me. It's the most fair you'll ever find.
But it will never happen. The poor will complain that the rich got a MASSIVE tax cut (compared to that 50%, they did) and they will probably complain that they have to pay more. And because there are more people who aren't rich than who are rich, the system would never get passed. A simple, flat sales tax on EVERYTHING and no income tax of any kind would be the farest system, but it will never come to be thanks to politics, greed, and people unwilling to see past jealosy ("But now the rich guy gets even MORE money due to lower taxes").
Many (most?) things that the governement does are the kind of things that you can't realisticly sell to a single person (things that benefit multiple people even if only one person pays). The system may not be perfect, but it's far better than the idiotic system you're proposing.
I kinda figured that would be the case. Thanks.
I was reading a book the other day (Hello World: A Life in Ham Radio) and it talked about how DeBeers got their mines. In the 20s or 30s they bought all the mining rights in some country for the next 99 years for some pathetic little sum. Do they have other mines or what? Because if not won't they loose their rights in about 10-20 years? Anyone know? Thanks.
And AMD supports it first. They support it right now. Intel is dragging their feet on it. That's the reason I WILL be buying AMD and boycotting Intel (although there are others, this would be the main one).
Out of all the things to omit when copying x86-64, omitting NX is just dropping the ball.
You know what, now I almost want them to do it just to see how utterly WEIRD it would be.
I agree with my parrent post to wain untill after E3 because prices are likely to change. And if a new system becomes $150, a used one is likely to get even cheaper.
Pfft. Gabe over at Penny Arcade already has one. He got it off eBay.
You've got some issues there and they all have some validity, but they are all quite minor for me (and probably most other people). Then again I was a Mac person before going to Windows (and later Linux) so some of that I'm used to.
Can anyone reply to this and explain the maximize thing? I don't have time to go search for it.
Could you post a list (longer the better) of examples (more specific and common the better) of your gripes/problems? I'd love to know if you have them. You have to admit without any examples and with the language in your post it does... push buttons. You say you have a Mac (I'm assuming OS X) so you've probably used it more than me (I don't get to use it day to day, just occasionally) so you may have noticed things I havent.
So could you post some examples? Fix my ignorance and prove your point!
I agree, I LOVE the power that Linux gives you, but I think most people would agree it would be nice to have Linux to they point where you can just do it the "Aunt Tillie" way sometimes if it's faster/easier/etc. You don't always need that much controll, and some times it can hinder. I like the "make Linux easy enough for Grandma" movement, because I think it will give us the best of both worlds, and that will be one great OS.
But, in many areas, the base functionality is THERE in Linux. These kind of design issues are things that we'll see more and more of.
And I've done some UI (very little) and you're right. It is VERY hard. I don't blame people for just "hacking" a UI together to test things and move on.
But in a year or two I will need a new computer. My brother took the plunge at going back to a Mac a few years ago (during OS 9, before OS X). It was a nice little computer, but I planned to stick with Windows.
Then came OS X.
Not only does it look good (and the new things like expose have me drooling), but it's got unix under it. It runs GCC. It runs make. You don't need to run cygwin. It's got basically everything that I've come to love about Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'll never give up Linux, but for a main OS/platform, I'm going Mac when I get a new computer.
The biggest thing between OS X and Linux for my decision is the "cohesiveness". I like tinkering around in Linux and looking up how to get things to work. But my classes in college are taking up more and more of my time and so when I need to get a wireless adapter working, setup a remote printer, or anything else I'd like it to "just work". Maybe one or two little dialog boxes, but it's just nicer. I like that I can plug in hardware and it works without having to go hunt down a driver. I like that I can go buy a piece of software if I must. Other than Office, there really isn't much proprietary software I use anymore, but if I need a good web authoring package on Linux, I can find one or write one. I like the ability to go to Microcenter and buy Dreamweaver. There is also the games. There are not many games that I really want to play on the PC any more (consoles fill most of it) but the few I want usually come out on the Mac (and if they don't it's OK, I can borrow times on Windows).
I love Linux, but I don't have all sorts of time to fuss with things. That "just works" is something I really like the idea of. I have problems with things in Windows too, but they don't usually take as long. It's rare these days that I run into a Windows problem that takes me a LONG time that I wouldn't have with Linux.
None of that even mentions how I like Apple's designs and such. And the idea of a G5 processor makes me drool too.
Macs with OS X are the best of both worlds. The unix core and environment that I've come to love, with the ease of use and consistancy that something like Windows can show, plus that loverly Mac hardware.
*duh*
I'd better quit before this becomes more circular.
It was origional here in the US, so it doesn't count as a sequel is what I'm saying.
Man this post is a waste of bandwidth ;)
I could think of many others. There are some that have another reason (for example many rythum games don't do too well in the US), but many were just great games that didn't do to well. I think a big part of the problem is that many parents buy games. So why risk their $50 or $60 on something the kid might not like when they know the kid has GTA3 or NBA 2k3 or some other game and they can just buy the sequel and the kid will almost certainly like it (even though it might not be that great).
There are many games out there, and many are fun. But personally I don't buy very many games (innovative or not). There are games that I've played and then thought "I wish I bought that", but I'm not going to because I've already beat the game. But far Far FAR more often the game wasn't that good (or terrible) or it was just short. I can't afford to take the chance to buy games. If games were $30, I would buy more, but a $60 for a new game you've got to be kidding me if you think I'll buy any games that look interesting. I think this is proven by the fact that I have about 5x as many GB/GBA games as most other consoles. Losing $25 or $30 on a game that looked fun (FF: Tactics was nice, but just not for me) isn't so bad. But if the games cost more, I wouldn't buy very many.
Sequels aren't always bad. Some are very innovative or really improve things (think GTA3 vs GTA2). As you can see above I'm eargly awaiting the sequels to many games. The problem is that some games get a sequel. Then they get another and another and before you know it you're on volume 10 of about the same thing. (Final Fantasy games don't count because each one is different, they're not true sequels (except X-2, which is almost "non-sequel" in it's own right)).
The end result of all this (and I think moving away from the razor blade model of video games would REALLY help) is that we get mostly sequels and remakes/collections and such.
I can't afford to take risks on innovative games. Of those above, I own Animal Crossing (because I rented it and got addicted to it and bought it) and Pikmin (because it looked fun and I trust Miyamoto). It's too risky.
Ford: A car so hot it BURNS.
Ford: Keeping your hands warm when starting the car in the winter.
Ford: At least we fixed the tire problem!
Ford: Because there is such a thing as too safe.
Ford: Because we all love pyrotechnic shows.
It's called spin baby. It's only bad because they haven't thought of a good spin yet.
It's one thing to have a group of engineers sit down to decide a standard. It's another to have a panel of engineers hear a bunch of companies argue why their product is better.
I see car dealerships advertising themselves (not selling a specific car or brand, but the dealership chain) during kids shows. I've seen tampax commercials and such during kids shows. Or how many kids do you think need those medic-alert bracelts for when you fall down and can't get up? I've seen ads for diet centeres during kids shows. And when I say this stuff, I'm not talking shows aimed at LITTLE kids where a parrent is probably watching, but ads during shows for an 8-10 year old where there is a good chance the parrent isn't watching. I realise there are some versions where it can make sense, but all too often it's just... odd.
How many 10 year olds want to go see the latest "feel good movie of the year" (you know, something like "Radio" that they could care less about).
I also find the number of ads for kids products during adult shows (ER, etc) amazing, although I realize they're there because the parrents of the kids they are targeting are watching. Still seems odd to me though.