Wow. I wasn't expecting the world-wide launch. Here is hoping they can pull it off. The Linux thing is interesting. The only other question I have is... if I download a game to play on my PSP (I'll be buying Parappa and UmJamma Lammy), can I play it on my PS3 too?
But the thing that this says to me is... Sony screwed up big time. Now I don't see why they didn't just do update the Blu-Ray driver later (like they did with the DVD driver in the PS2). Instead they delayed the launch.
Now Nintendo has a major leg up. I have been waiting for the Revolution and I think that it will do much better than the 'Cube did this generation. But now they will both launch around Christmas. Let's ignore the fan-boys and look at the people who want a new video game console. So little Billy wants a console. Do you...
Buy him a XBox 360 ($300 for the full system plus games, based on hypothetical price cut)
Buy him a PS3 ($425 based on "minimum" price, plus games)
Buy him a Revolution ($200 plus games)
So if we assume $60 games, that is $360 for a XBox with one game, $485 for a PS3 with one game, or $260 for a Rev with one game (assuming no pack-in). So for the price of a XBox, you can get a Revolution with about 3 games. For the price of the PS3, you can get the Revolution plus 5 games.
That will be a MAJOR plus to Nintendo, not counting all the other pluses (controller, backed library, etc). Look how Nintendo is doing in Japan with the DS. Nintendogs was HUGE here in the states, I know lots of little girls who got a DS just for that game. If Brain Training becomes big here too, wow. If they can do the same sort of thing with the Revolution, they could break out of their "slump" big time.
I can't wait for E3/GDC when we'll see more of all three systems.
Disappointing to say the least, no decent set-top box can take more than 5, maybe 10 seconds to start.
Do you have a TiVo? Do you have any idea how long it takes to turn on a TiVo? Mine (a series 2 DirecTiVo) takes over one minute to boot. My brother's (a series 2 stand alone) takes about the same time.
For something that will stay plugged in for long periods of time, boot time doesn't matter. Turn the thing on, load everything up, and when the user want to "turn it off" you let them put it in standby. Almost no power used, almost instant "boot"/"shutdown".
My TiVo can come up from suspend in 2 seconds. My Mac can do the same. If you suspend to the HD it will take longer, but if you just use RAM it can be done FAST.
I remember playing in a few different positions, and I don't remember any of them giving me any real trouble.
The biggest problem with the Virtual Boy was that it wasn't the GameBoy Color. Everyone was expecting the GameBoy Color and here comes Nintendo with this system that only shows red and isn't portable (they shouldn't have used "Boy" in the name, that implied portability). It was never going to be huge, but it could have done quite a bit better than it did.
I'm not a big XBox fan. I've only owned 3 games for it or so. But MS got the XBox into popular culture. That is a simple fact.
Is the XBox the best system of the current generation? I'd say no. I'd say that would be the 'Cube but there are many who would argue that the best was the PS2.
The Dreamcast was a very nice system too, but it got slaughtered in the states, rightfully or not.
You're right that the PS2 was a huge hit out of the gate, but what I meant was that the games weren't there for a while. It took a few months before it started getting more good games.
As for the XBox doing great, I think that it is for all that it could be. There were so many predictions that the XBox would be stillborn or never catch on. It has mindshare up there with Playstation, and has become the new "Nintendo" that everyone uses to talk about videogames (you used to play Nintendo, then you played PlayStation, now you play XBox. It's the generic). It didn't match Sony, but it has done very well considering who they were up against.
The VB never gave me headaches, and I didn't mind the red. Mario Tennis is probably the best tennis game that I've played. Mario Crash felt like playing the original Mario Brothers' arcade game again. The Wario Land was superlative, and Galactic Pinball was fun to play.
Well there is one thing in which having a new format helps over DVD: storage.
With the revolution this may not be a problem. But if Final Fantasy XII were made as an XBox 360 exclusive game, how many discs do you think it would be? The cinematics take up a lot of room. So do all those high resolution textures (and bump maps, and normal maps, and...). Don't forget all the character/enemy/scenery models. That is a ton of data, and having it all on one disc helps quite a bit.
That said, I don't think it will be such a big deal, at least not for awhile. If companies target the lowest-common-denominator, that would be DVD (both Rev and 360).
Quite true. Sega was a great company that had a lot of success but the Dreamcast (which was a nice system) was not very successful (at least in the US).
But let's look at recent history.
Sony's released the highly anticipated PS2 with a rather meager launch lineup, and the system took off like a juggernaught after a while. The PSP was launched with much anticipation and we haven't seen too much of it since then. It is still there, and it isn't dead, but it wasn't the huge hit many expected it to be. The games aren't helping. (I must admit, I expected the system to take off after GTA: LCS came out and it didn't happen).
Microsoft launched the XBox among much skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and the system did fine (not financially, but in general). They launched the 360 to skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and is doing fine.
Nintendo launched the GameCube cheap, and it did very well. They launched the DS (which many people thought would be the next VirtualBoy, which was a great system with fantastic games, BTW) and after a short time without many games it has been picking up steam ever since. The system is HUGE in Japan and popular here in the states. Games are all over the map from traditional to experimental and from hard-core to "non-gamer".
Expect MS and Sony to be much like the last generation. Sony may falter some, the XBox may do better. The Revolution is the wild card. It will either be much like the 'Cube (a great system that is beloved by owners but not big like the PS2) or it will take off like the NES did leaving competitors in it's dust. Either way, I'll be happy.
I can't wait for the Rev, and I can't wait for GDC and E3 when we should find out more about all the systems.
I agree completely. I watch X-Play and it is where I get all my game reviews. I may see/read others, but they are the ones I trust. When a game is bad, they really tell you. And while their previews are always positive, it is usually pretty obvious when they think a game has serious problems from the preview copy.
Too bad ZDtv/TechTV got ruined. Back before the merger I always wanted to get G4 so I could watch it. Now that I have it (thanks to the merger) I wish it would go away. All they did was replace shows I liked (Invent This! Fresh Gear, and others) with crud (Attack of the Show, Barbed Wire Biscuit, Cinematech, etc).
"In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. In the build we played there were some bugs here and there, but the game was comming along nicely. The levels looked good and were interactive and had plenty of little touches making them seem alive and real, and the shooting mechanic felt very good. The AI provided some challenge (except for a few known bugs) and the game seemed fun. The world is enganging and the story is well presented. The game has a large number of weapons, but some currently feal very similar. The game is shaping up for a November release."
or "In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. In the build we played there were some bugs here and there, but none severly effected gameplay. The levels looked rather drab and flat, with detail akin to a game from 3 years ago. There was no interactivity to speak of, and the shooting mechanic had serious flaws in the accuracy of aiming. The AI, while working, provided little challenge and was prone to getting stuck on the simplest of objects (like a stair). The scenerio is very similar to about a dozen other games; and the story seems almost bolted-on to the action and completely incidental to the game. The dozens of weapons play almost identicle, many even looking very similar to others. The game is expected to be released in November."
The first was of a game that shows promise, the second was of a game that had some obvious problems. Let's look at what a "normal" preview looks like:
>"In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. The game world is full of interesting characters and enemies all with AI that will be very realistic. In the build we played we ran around and shot stuff and since we didn't want to kill ourselves afterward, this will obviously be a "must have" game. The levels looked great, based on the pre-renders they showed us, and are supposed to be fully interactive using a real-time-inverse-kinematic-physics-engine. There are dozens of weapons in the game, along with what is promised to be the best online multiplayer for a console to date. You'll want to reserve your copy now so you can buy it when it comes out in November."
It doesn't matter how boring or bug ridden a game is, they always get glowing previews. The only time you even see bugs mentioned in previews is in the previews of games that are expected to be great (due to lineage). You might see something like "In PGR3 we encounted a few small glitches but the game is already a blast to play." In a buggy game you'll see previews like "In Driver 3 you'll be able to drive around a GTA like world." Notice it doesn't mention that if there was a feather in the road it would stop your car dead if you hit it (example based on memory).
The reviews themselves don't help either. The "average" game seems to get a score of about 80%. A game has to be really bad to get even a medium-low score (40-50%). I think we should force reviewers to use a bell-curve system to fight "Review Inflation."
"Opera 9 (get the weekly build) now passes the Acid 2 test, making it the second browser to do so. And yes, I can count. Safari passed first, and Opera is second. Konqueror and iCab almost pass (and claim to pass), but they both fail to apply one of the styles required by the test..."
This is going a rather off topic, but I see the early to mid sixties as "better" than now. Shows like The Dick Van Dyke Show, which I find funnier than most of the current sitcoms.
There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".
I'm sure television has almost always been mostly "junk". There is tons of stuff on right now that isn't worth watching. I'm sure that was true in the 50s, 60s, 70, and 80s (I know it was in the 90s).At the same time, I think there is more good stuff on now than there used to be. But this is a numbers game. There used to be 3 TV networks. If you assume that 80% of TV is not worth watching, then that was x shows. Now there are 100 networks. If we assume that 50% of that is repeats and reruns, then that is 50 networks worth of content. If 80% of TV is not worth watching, there is now about 16x shows worth watching. So there is more on worth watching, but there is also more on not worth watching.
The other meaning is that TV is worse for you. This would be the idea that the morals/values/lessons/messages/whatever are worse than they were, and I personally agree with this wholeheartedly. The current top rated shows (minus reality) include Two and a Half Men, and Desperate Housewives (along with ER, Grey's Anatomy, and a few others).
Two and a Half Men is a show about a inept cowardly chiropractor, his hedonistic brother, and the son of the first. There is no downside to the hedonism shown. It is basically encouraged. The lessons that kid would be learning would be disastrous in real life. The hedonist can't even take care of himself. There is an insane neighbor who is basically stalking the hedonist. And the mother of the son is portrayed as someone who only cares about herself. Hardly "wholesome" TV. Desperate Housewives is the same way. The shows are, at best, relativistic.
Most other shows show indiscriminate sex, no regard for marriage or religion (both of which are openly mocked), and more. Just about every man in a sitcom is shows as a sex-hound who is incapable of even surviving for one day without his wife to "rescue" him. The kids are usually shows as smarter than their parents, whom they disobey with basically no consequences. The only time this isn't the case is during "after school special" moments, which quickly give way to the status quo.
Watch the Dick Van Dyke show. It's full of great stories that still work today. No degrading humor. No sex triangles. Richie (the son) learns a valuable lesson once in a while. People are nice to each other (instilling of trading insults, which seems to pass for interaction on TV these days). If you tried to raise your kids without vales back then, TV did nothing to stop you. If you tried to raise them with values, TV would only help.
Today, if you try to raise your kid without values, TV is there to help you. if you try to raise your kid with values, TV is openly trying to subvert you.
You may not think this is bad, or even agree with me. But there are many who do.
But in comment to the parent of this, I agree. There is tons of entertaining stuff on TV these days. Get yourself a TiVo so you can catch things no matter when they air, and you'll always have something on and be able to watch more stuff.
Well this is where digital distribution is going isn't it. Cable was the first step. Thanks to cable, you didn't have to make shows that would appeal to everyone. Things that wouldn't have made it on the big three could suddenly find a home. Digital distribution is the next step. Cut out the middle man. Tivo has already show us this (if you have a TiVo).
With a TiVo TV runs on your schedule. A show that wouldn't survive prime time or day time under normal circumstances could be run at 2:00 AM. TiVo users would record it and to them it wouldn't seem any different than if it ran at 8:00 PM. TiVo killed time slots, for TiVo users.
Digital distribution takes it one step further. That will kill channels. We are seeing this with the popularity of TV on DVD. I couldn't care less if Battlestar Galactica ran on ABC, UPN, Bravo, or The Home Shopping Network. If the show is the same, then where it came from doesn't matter. This is where iTunes and such will bring us.
You won't watch ABC. You won't say you like the stuff NBC shows. You'll say you like things made by Dick Wolf or David E. Kelly. Just like people don't say they like Paramount stuff (as they might back before the big studio breakups), they say they like Spielberg stuff, or Tarintino stuff.
I think this is great. There are so many great shows that never made it for various reasons (including but not limited to not finding their audience, terrible time slot, chronic time slot changes, etc). Dead Like Me, Keen Eddie, The Critic, John Doe, Threshold, Firefly, Futurama, and many others have been canceled. Half the shows on TechTV/ZDtv too.
We've already seen it happen. DVD sales brought back Family Guy (which Fox killed, like so many shows, with the deadly 7:00 PM Eastern time slot on Sunday). There are always rumors of that happening to Futurama too. Firefly fans have been trying.
When you take having to be on at a decent time out of the equation, it becomes much easier to program to the long tail. The problem is that enough people don't have DVRs yet. If you give them digital distribution that works too (just let my TiVo download the shows straight from the network off the 'net), I think we'll see programing move more towards the tail as networks are no longer "forced" to program towards the middle of the bell curve.
The rm-my-mac challenge was setup similar to how you would have a Mac acting as a server[...]
Wrong. He was using OS X, not OS X Server. Running a little website behind a firewall is probably safe with OS X. Handing out shell accounts on a desktop os?
From his site: It runs a default install of Mac OS X Tiger, plus fink and some decent versions of Apache, MySQL and PHP. Software Update recently updated it to Mac OS X 10.4.5 and fixed some security issues.
Default install of Mac OS X Tiger.
Apple has a server operating system. If you want to run your Mac as a server out on the internet, you should be running the server operating system, not one that is optimized for being a desktop.
Think he could have done this as easily with a computer running a proper server OS? Ask MS about how easy it is to hack your internet server running XP Pro and they would probably tell you that you should be running 2003.
Go ask Rackspace, CI Host, DreamHost, or anyone else if they would put up shared servers running XP Pro or OS X. My guess is they would all laugh at you. They would run 2003 or OS X Server.
Macs aren't perfect. But in perspective, this guy had to hand out accounts to the computer. Compare that to Windows vulnerability that we have all seen where the computer can be hijacked while it is still booting. I'd say I still have the more secure OS, of the two.
I agree. Apple's "hype" was sending out a little note saying "Join us on date xx for an announcement". It didn't say "for a huge" announcement, or an earthshaking one. It said nothing about that. They could have used the occasion to announce a stock split for all they wrote.
However the Apple sites, along with other sites (I bet CNET is guilty of this too) instantly took this as "They are announcing the tablet Mac!", or "They are announcing the video iPod", or "The new Newton is coming!".
They were responsible for all the hype.
And the announcement of the Mini wasn't anything to sneeze at either. It means that now all consumer Apple computers (except the Laptops) are on Intel processors.
On a side note, I wish they would make a new Newton. I would love one. Apple is so good at interfaces.
PS: Also, the guys over a Penny-Arcade have gone Mac and they really like it so far. Check out their post about it (and the comic). They said they'd provide more details tomorrow (Monday).
As I remember that was one of the arguments for AC. AC motors are (or at least were) cheaper to make (or more efficient or something) than DC ones. And back when electricity first came around, what did you want it to do? Light your house? AC works fine for that. Run a mixer or a dryer or something else with a motor? AC makes it real easy. For a very long time, many people had basically no need for DC.
I sold it over a year ago, so that is from memory. That said, it was a big desktop replacement, and it had a top of the line GeForce Go graphics chip in it (one of the reasons why I bought it). Now note that that battery life would have been under my normal work load, which would mean mostly surfing the web constantly; Flash ads, WiFi, and all.
If I just typed in Word or something like that, it would have given me much more.
When they say "Watts" with computer batteries, aren't they usually referring to "Watt-hours" and not true watts? That is what I was basing things off of.
For example, my laptop's battery is supposed to be 42 Watts. System profiler tells me it is about 12v, and full charge capacity of 4100 mAh. Multiply it out and you get 49 Watt-hours. If you take into account the voltage will drop as the battery discharges and the battery becomes useless at certain voltage level, it probably has 42 Watt-hours of useful energy.
Am I wrong?
PS: My battery has cycled 87 times, and my computer does not have an UPS installed according to System Profiler (that is an option on any Mac?)
My last laptop (a Dell Inspiron 8000) I kept two batteries in (it was a three spindle notebook). This increased the weight, but gave me over three hours of battery life with normal use (it was a desktop replacement that just loved to eat batteries). I would gladly replace one in that notebook with one of these for the extra battery life (if I still had it).
My currently laptop is a Apple PowerBook (15", Feb 2005 model). I'm not sure it would have the room necessary for one of these to replace the standard battery, but I would gladly do it (I currently get 3 hours of use, or about 45 min if I run a full-on 3D game with the laptop in "high performance" mode).
I would be much more interested if it was a closed system that could recharge it's self (like a fuel-cell could be set up). That said, it's 45w of power and almost 4 pounds. My current battery is 46 watts and less than 1.8 pounds. And I know the newer PowerBooks and MacBook Pros have better batteries than mine.
3 more watts, double the weight. How will that give me 8 hours of battery life? I'm skeptical. Maybe in an ultra-light notebook with a slow processor doing word processing.
Still, at least someone is about to market something other than a "normal" battery.
I've never used either, so I can't comment. That said, my understanding is that the OS X version moves over applications as well as settings and files. Frankly I don't have too many settings, and copying my files by hand is no big deal. I've done that before. So in that vein both would be useless to me. But the ability to copy over all my applications would be a huge boon when moving to a new computer. Too bad Windows can't do that.
I intend to try it when I upgrade my Mac.
Now if Apple could just set things up to copy old settings and such from a Windows computer, that would be amazing. Copy the files from My Docs, copy homepage settings and such from IE or FireFox, and get Email from common programs and put it in iMail. That would have been SO useful when I moved over (you can read what I went through at my Adventures in Mac Land secion of my site).
I'll be glad to try to answer this. I have been a long time Mac fan, and I came back to Macs last year when I bought a 1.67 GHz PowerBook.
My interpretation? I don't care. If I had a Windows computer, Intel would be making many of these decisions. With a new Mac, things are the same. While the independance of Apple was nice, it wasn't a big deal, and definiatly didn't outweight their CPU problems (the G5s were quite nice, but the laptops had gotten very sorry due to the old G4).
But what difference does it make? Apple can still add things. They can always ask for it on chipset (or get someone else to make the chipset, specifically the southbridge, for them) or they can add it on motherboard like everyone else. A few years ago it seemed like you couldn't buy anything other than a basic motherboard without getting an IDE RAID chip the manufacturer had added onto this motherboard. This stopped (mostly) when chipsets started to have that feature built in. If Apple wants to add a feature, they can just add the chip on the motherboard like everyone else.
And they are still Apple. They can still make those moves that everyone else in the PC industry seems to be afraid of. They went and used USB (only) when no one else had the guts. They went with the ExpressCard with the new MacBook Pros, which I hadn't seen anywhere (on the market yet) until Apple did it. They have options.
They can always go to AMD anyway. They won't need to do anything to do that like the big preparations to go Intel. And even if they don't, they can threaten it; like Dell does.
Re:Not being a programer myself,
on
AMD Subpoenas Skype
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's basically how VM Ware works on Windows. It runs the code, but traps privileged instructions and handles them it's self (I realize this is a rough description). Using the same methods I don't see why you couldn't trap a CPUID instruction.
That said, I think it would be much easier to just patch the executable to swap the instruction to get CPUID with a load register instruction or some such in it's place. The only question would be if the software checks it's checksum or has some other anti-tampering feature.
What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?
I have been thinking. Wouldn't it be interesting if they used this to offer paid hosting of websites and businesses (ala Rackspace/Dreamhost/CIHost/Whatever)? Now I realized that this is quite a bit out of their core market, but it would get Apple servers out there. And who better to know how to run a datacenter of Macs than Apple themselves. Rent your own partial XServer to even a full XServer!
Just an interesting thought. I doubt it, but it was the first thing that popped into my head when you mentioned that.
I never even thought of them using it for iTMS and.Mac. That would make more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
But the thing that this says to me is... Sony screwed up big time. Now I don't see why they didn't just do update the Blu-Ray driver later (like they did with the DVD driver in the PS2). Instead they delayed the launch.
Now Nintendo has a major leg up. I have been waiting for the Revolution and I think that it will do much better than the 'Cube did this generation. But now they will both launch around Christmas. Let's ignore the fan-boys and look at the people who want a new video game console. So little Billy wants a console. Do you...
So if we assume $60 games, that is $360 for a XBox with one game, $485 for a PS3 with one game, or $260 for a Rev with one game (assuming no pack-in). So for the price of a XBox, you can get a Revolution with about 3 games. For the price of the PS3, you can get the Revolution plus 5 games.
That will be a MAJOR plus to Nintendo, not counting all the other pluses (controller, backed library, etc). Look how Nintendo is doing in Japan with the DS. Nintendogs was HUGE here in the states, I know lots of little girls who got a DS just for that game. If Brain Training becomes big here too, wow. If they can do the same sort of thing with the Revolution, they could break out of their "slump" big time.
I can't wait for E3/GDC when we'll see more of all three systems.
Do you have a TiVo? Do you have any idea how long it takes to turn on a TiVo? Mine (a series 2 DirecTiVo) takes over one minute to boot. My brother's (a series 2 stand alone) takes about the same time.
For something that will stay plugged in for long periods of time, boot time doesn't matter. Turn the thing on, load everything up, and when the user want to "turn it off" you let them put it in standby. Almost no power used, almost instant "boot"/"shutdown".
My TiVo can come up from suspend in 2 seconds. My Mac can do the same. If you suspend to the HD it will take longer, but if you just use RAM it can be done FAST.
The biggest problem with the Virtual Boy was that it wasn't the GameBoy Color. Everyone was expecting the GameBoy Color and here comes Nintendo with this system that only shows red and isn't portable (they shouldn't have used "Boy" in the name, that implied portability). It was never going to be huge, but it could have done quite a bit better than it did.
Is the XBox the best system of the current generation? I'd say no. I'd say that would be the 'Cube but there are many who would argue that the best was the PS2.
The Dreamcast was a very nice system too, but it got slaughtered in the states, rightfully or not.
As for the XBox doing great, I think that it is for all that it could be. There were so many predictions that the XBox would be stillborn or never catch on. It has mindshare up there with Playstation, and has become the new "Nintendo" that everyone uses to talk about videogames (you used to play Nintendo, then you played PlayStation, now you play XBox. It's the generic). It didn't match Sony, but it has done very well considering who they were up against.
The VB never gave me headaches, and I didn't mind the red. Mario Tennis is probably the best tennis game that I've played. Mario Crash felt like playing the original Mario Brothers' arcade game again. The Wario Land was superlative, and Galactic Pinball was fun to play.
With the revolution this may not be a problem. But if Final Fantasy XII were made as an XBox 360 exclusive game, how many discs do you think it would be? The cinematics take up a lot of room. So do all those high resolution textures (and bump maps, and normal maps, and...). Don't forget all the character/enemy/scenery models. That is a ton of data, and having it all on one disc helps quite a bit.
That said, I don't think it will be such a big deal, at least not for awhile. If companies target the lowest-common-denominator, that would be DVD (both Rev and 360).
But let's look at recent history.
Sony's released the highly anticipated PS2 with a rather meager launch lineup, and the system took off like a juggernaught after a while. The PSP was launched with much anticipation and we haven't seen too much of it since then. It is still there, and it isn't dead, but it wasn't the huge hit many expected it to be. The games aren't helping. (I must admit, I expected the system to take off after GTA: LCS came out and it didn't happen).
Microsoft launched the XBox among much skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and the system did fine (not financially, but in general). They launched the 360 to skepticism and speculation that it was more powerful, and is doing fine.
Nintendo launched the GameCube cheap, and it did very well. They launched the DS (which many people thought would be the next VirtualBoy, which was a great system with fantastic games, BTW) and after a short time without many games it has been picking up steam ever since. The system is HUGE in Japan and popular here in the states. Games are all over the map from traditional to experimental and from hard-core to "non-gamer".
Expect MS and Sony to be much like the last generation. Sony may falter some, the XBox may do better. The Revolution is the wild card. It will either be much like the 'Cube (a great system that is beloved by owners but not big like the PS2) or it will take off like the NES did leaving competitors in it's dust. Either way, I'll be happy.
I can't wait for the Rev, and I can't wait for GDC and E3 when we should find out more about all the systems.
Too bad ZDtv/TechTV got ruined. Back before the merger I always wanted to get G4 so I could watch it. Now that I have it (thanks to the merger) I wish it would go away. All they did was replace shows I liked (Invent This! Fresh Gear, and others) with crud (Attack of the Show, Barbed Wire Biscuit, Cinematech, etc).
"In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. In the build we played there were some bugs here and there, but the game was comming along nicely. The levels looked good and were interactive and had plenty of little touches making them seem alive and real, and the shooting mechanic felt very good. The AI provided some challenge (except for a few known bugs) and the game seemed fun. The world is enganging and the story is well presented. The game has a large number of weapons, but some currently feal very similar. The game is shaping up for a November release."
or "In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. In the build we played there were some bugs here and there, but none severly effected gameplay. The levels looked rather drab and flat, with detail akin to a game from 3 years ago. There was no interactivity to speak of, and the shooting mechanic had serious flaws in the accuracy of aiming. The AI, while working, provided little challenge and was prone to getting stuck on the simplest of objects (like a stair). The scenerio is very similar to about a dozen other games; and the story seems almost bolted-on to the action and completely incidental to the game. The dozens of weapons play almost identicle, many even looking very similar to others. The game is expected to be released in November."
The first was of a game that shows promise, the second was of a game that had some obvious problems. Let's look at what a "normal" preview looks like:
>"In Joe Bob's Grand Adventure you'll be playing Joe Bob as he fights to regain his Pickle farm from the evil Artichoke-Industrial Complex. The game world is full of interesting characters and enemies all with AI that will be very realistic. In the build we played we ran around and shot stuff and since we didn't want to kill ourselves afterward, this will obviously be a "must have" game. The levels looked great, based on the pre-renders they showed us, and are supposed to be fully interactive using a real-time-inverse-kinematic-physics-engine. There are dozens of weapons in the game, along with what is promised to be the best online multiplayer for a console to date. You'll want to reserve your copy now so you can buy it when it comes out in November."
It doesn't matter how boring or bug ridden a game is, they always get glowing previews. The only time you even see bugs mentioned in previews is in the previews of games that are expected to be great (due to lineage). You might see something like "In PGR3 we encounted a few small glitches but the game is already a blast to play." In a buggy game you'll see previews like "In Driver 3 you'll be able to drive around a GTA like world." Notice it doesn't mention that if there was a feather in the road it would stop your car dead if you hit it (example based on memory).
The reviews themselves don't help either. The "average" game seems to get a score of about 80%. A game has to be really bad to get even a medium-low score (40-50%). I think we should force reviewers to use a bell-curve system to fight "Review Inflation."
"Opera 9 (get the weekly build) now passes the Acid 2 test, making it the second browser to do so. And yes, I can count. Safari passed first, and Opera is second. Konqueror and iCab almost pass (and claim to pass), but they both fail to apply one of the styles required by the test..."
There are really two possible meanings for "television is worse now." One is that there used to be more shows on worth watching. The other is that shows were "better".
I'm sure television has almost always been mostly "junk". There is tons of stuff on right now that isn't worth watching. I'm sure that was true in the 50s, 60s, 70, and 80s (I know it was in the 90s).At the same time, I think there is more good stuff on now than there used to be. But this is a numbers game. There used to be 3 TV networks. If you assume that 80% of TV is not worth watching, then that was x shows. Now there are 100 networks. If we assume that 50% of that is repeats and reruns, then that is 50 networks worth of content. If 80% of TV is not worth watching, there is now about 16x shows worth watching. So there is more on worth watching, but there is also more on not worth watching.
The other meaning is that TV is worse for you. This would be the idea that the morals/values/lessons/messages/whatever are worse than they were, and I personally agree with this wholeheartedly. The current top rated shows (minus reality) include Two and a Half Men, and Desperate Housewives (along with ER, Grey's Anatomy, and a few others).
Two and a Half Men is a show about a inept cowardly chiropractor, his hedonistic brother, and the son of the first. There is no downside to the hedonism shown. It is basically encouraged. The lessons that kid would be learning would be disastrous in real life. The hedonist can't even take care of himself. There is an insane neighbor who is basically stalking the hedonist. And the mother of the son is portrayed as someone who only cares about herself. Hardly "wholesome" TV. Desperate Housewives is the same way. The shows are, at best, relativistic.
Most other shows show indiscriminate sex, no regard for marriage or religion (both of which are openly mocked), and more. Just about every man in a sitcom is shows as a sex-hound who is incapable of even surviving for one day without his wife to "rescue" him. The kids are usually shows as smarter than their parents, whom they disobey with basically no consequences. The only time this isn't the case is during "after school special" moments, which quickly give way to the status quo.
Watch the Dick Van Dyke show. It's full of great stories that still work today. No degrading humor. No sex triangles. Richie (the son) learns a valuable lesson once in a while. People are nice to each other (instilling of trading insults, which seems to pass for interaction on TV these days). If you tried to raise your kids without vales back then, TV did nothing to stop you. If you tried to raise them with values, TV would only help.
Today, if you try to raise your kid without values, TV is there to help you. if you try to raise your kid with values, TV is openly trying to subvert you.
You may not think this is bad, or even agree with me. But there are many who do.
But in comment to the parent of this, I agree. There is tons of entertaining stuff on TV these days. Get yourself a TiVo so you can catch things no matter when they air, and you'll always have something on and be able to watch more stuff.
With a TiVo TV runs on your schedule. A show that wouldn't survive prime time or day time under normal circumstances could be run at 2:00 AM. TiVo users would record it and to them it wouldn't seem any different than if it ran at 8:00 PM. TiVo killed time slots, for TiVo users.
Digital distribution takes it one step further. That will kill channels. We are seeing this with the popularity of TV on DVD. I couldn't care less if Battlestar Galactica ran on ABC, UPN, Bravo, or The Home Shopping Network. If the show is the same, then where it came from doesn't matter. This is where iTunes and such will bring us.
You won't watch ABC. You won't say you like the stuff NBC shows. You'll say you like things made by Dick Wolf or David E. Kelly. Just like people don't say they like Paramount stuff (as they might back before the big studio breakups), they say they like Spielberg stuff, or Tarintino stuff.
I think this is great. There are so many great shows that never made it for various reasons (including but not limited to not finding their audience, terrible time slot, chronic time slot changes, etc). Dead Like Me, Keen Eddie, The Critic, John Doe, Threshold, Firefly, Futurama, and many others have been canceled. Half the shows on TechTV/ZDtv too.
We've already seen it happen. DVD sales brought back Family Guy (which Fox killed, like so many shows, with the deadly 7:00 PM Eastern time slot on Sunday). There are always rumors of that happening to Futurama too. Firefly fans have been trying.
When you take having to be on at a decent time out of the equation, it becomes much easier to program to the long tail. The problem is that enough people don't have DVRs yet. If you give them digital distribution that works too (just let my TiVo download the shows straight from the network off the 'net), I think we'll see programing move more towards the tail as networks are no longer "forced" to program towards the middle of the bell curve.
Wrong. He was using OS X, not OS X Server. Running a little website behind a firewall is probably safe with OS X. Handing out shell accounts on a desktop os?
From his site: It runs a default install of Mac OS X Tiger, plus fink and some decent versions of Apache, MySQL and PHP. Software Update recently updated it to Mac OS X 10.4.5 and fixed some security issues.
Default install of Mac OS X Tiger.
Apple has a server operating system. If you want to run your Mac as a server out on the internet, you should be running the server operating system, not one that is optimized for being a desktop.
Think he could have done this as easily with a computer running a proper server OS? Ask MS about how easy it is to hack your internet server running XP Pro and they would probably tell you that you should be running 2003.
Go ask Rackspace, CI Host, DreamHost, or anyone else if they would put up shared servers running XP Pro or OS X. My guess is they would all laugh at you. They would run 2003 or OS X Server.
Macs aren't perfect. But in perspective, this guy had to hand out accounts to the computer. Compare that to Windows vulnerability that we have all seen where the computer can be hijacked while it is still booting. I'd say I still have the more secure OS, of the two.
I agree though. They are nice computers, but the Core Duos are just so much faster.
However the Apple sites, along with other sites (I bet CNET is guilty of this too) instantly took this as "They are announcing the tablet Mac!", or "They are announcing the video iPod", or "The new Newton is coming!".
They were responsible for all the hype.
And the announcement of the Mini wasn't anything to sneeze at either. It means that now all consumer Apple computers (except the Laptops) are on Intel processors.
On a side note, I wish they would make a new Newton. I would love one. Apple is so good at interfaces.
PS: Also, the guys over a Penny-Arcade have gone Mac and they really like it so far. Check out their post about it (and the comic). They said they'd provide more details tomorrow (Monday).
As I remember that was one of the arguments for AC. AC motors are (or at least were) cheaper to make (or more efficient or something) than DC ones. And back when electricity first came around, what did you want it to do? Light your house? AC works fine for that. Run a mixer or a dryer or something else with a motor? AC makes it real easy. For a very long time, many people had basically no need for DC.
If I just typed in Word or something like that, it would have given me much more.
For example, my laptop's battery is supposed to be 42 Watts. System profiler tells me it is about 12v, and full charge capacity of 4100 mAh. Multiply it out and you get 49 Watt-hours. If you take into account the voltage will drop as the battery discharges and the battery becomes useless at certain voltage level, it probably has 42 Watt-hours of useful energy.
Am I wrong?
PS: My battery has cycled 87 times, and my computer does not have an UPS installed according to System Profiler (that is an option on any Mac?)
I was playing Tube Twist, fullscreen, full-rez, with the brightness up about full.
If true, I'd buy it.
My last laptop (a Dell Inspiron 8000) I kept two batteries in (it was a three spindle notebook). This increased the weight, but gave me over three hours of battery life with normal use (it was a desktop replacement that just loved to eat batteries). I would gladly replace one in that notebook with one of these for the extra battery life (if I still had it).
My currently laptop is a Apple PowerBook (15", Feb 2005 model). I'm not sure it would have the room necessary for one of these to replace the standard battery, but I would gladly do it (I currently get 3 hours of use, or about 45 min if I run a full-on 3D game with the laptop in "high performance" mode).
I would be much more interested if it was a closed system that could recharge it's self (like a fuel-cell could be set up). That said, it's 45w of power and almost 4 pounds. My current battery is 46 watts and less than 1.8 pounds. And I know the newer PowerBooks and MacBook Pros have better batteries than mine.
3 more watts, double the weight. How will that give me 8 hours of battery life? I'm skeptical. Maybe in an ultra-light notebook with a slow processor doing word processing.
Still, at least someone is about to market something other than a "normal" battery.
I intend to try it when I upgrade my Mac.
Now if Apple could just set things up to copy old settings and such from a Windows computer, that would be amazing. Copy the files from My Docs, copy homepage settings and such from IE or FireFox, and get Email from common programs and put it in iMail. That would have been SO useful when I moved over (you can read what I went through at my Adventures in Mac Land secion of my site).
My interpretation? I don't care. If I had a Windows computer, Intel would be making many of these decisions. With a new Mac, things are the same. While the independance of Apple was nice, it wasn't a big deal, and definiatly didn't outweight their CPU problems (the G5s were quite nice, but the laptops had gotten very sorry due to the old G4).
But what difference does it make? Apple can still add things. They can always ask for it on chipset (or get someone else to make the chipset, specifically the southbridge, for them) or they can add it on motherboard like everyone else. A few years ago it seemed like you couldn't buy anything other than a basic motherboard without getting an IDE RAID chip the manufacturer had added onto this motherboard. This stopped (mostly) when chipsets started to have that feature built in. If Apple wants to add a feature, they can just add the chip on the motherboard like everyone else.
And they are still Apple. They can still make those moves that everyone else in the PC industry seems to be afraid of. They went and used USB (only) when no one else had the guts. They went with the ExpressCard with the new MacBook Pros, which I hadn't seen anywhere (on the market yet) until Apple did it. They have options.
They can always go to AMD anyway. They won't need to do anything to do that like the big preparations to go Intel. And even if they don't, they can threaten it; like Dell does.
That said, I think it would be much easier to just patch the executable to swap the instruction to get CPUID with a load register instruction or some such in it's place. The only question would be if the software checks it's checksum or has some other anti-tampering feature.
What I want to know is what Apple's going to do with its new 107,000 square foot Tier IV data center... iTunes Movie/Media Store, anyone?
I have been thinking. Wouldn't it be interesting if they used this to offer paid hosting of websites and businesses (ala Rackspace/Dreamhost/CIHost/Whatever)? Now I realized that this is quite a bit out of their core market, but it would get Apple servers out there. And who better to know how to run a datacenter of Macs than Apple themselves. Rent your own partial XServer to even a full XServer!
Just an interesting thought. I doubt it, but it was the first thing that popped into my head when you mentioned that.
I never even thought of them using it for iTMS and .Mac. That would make more sense.