At this point, I think you are nuts to buy any camera (except perhaps a DSLR) that does not include Image Stabilization technology. My camera (a Canon Powershot S2 IS) has it and it makes a WORLD of difference in low light and when zoomed in. It help in normal situations too. Sony just released one of their ultra-tiny cameras with it (the first folded lens camera to have it, the DSC-T9), and many other cameras on the market have it.
My mother has a digital camera and she is constantly dissapointed by it. It is a nice camera, but like all digitials it seems to need more light to get a decent picture than a film camera with ISO 400 in it (boot the ISO to that on the camera, it still needs more light and the noise is horrendus). Having IS would be a HUGE help for that reason, and others (light camera + slightly shakey hands = blurry pictures). About the only time she gets good pictures out of it is in full sun (she could other times too with some learning and trial and error, but I don't blame her for not wanting to spend the time).
If the camera doesn't have Image Stabilization, skip it. Go to a store and try a camera with it on and off. The difference is amazing. You can see more about it if you read a review of the S2 IS or other cameras that have it.
Does it matter any more? The guy submits interesting stories, is that really a problem?
Now back a few months ago when each story he submitted went to his blog, which was invariably a link to the REAL story, I agreed with you. He was just getting clicks and ad-views. Slashdot was being used to make him money.
But look at the story that was posted today (and the other recent posts by Roland). There are no links to his blog (except his name). So unless you are TRYING to get there, you get the same links I or anyone else would have submitted.
He finds interesting stuff, submits good summaries (as opposed to those that get through every once in a while where you have to wonder "What does that mean?" or the summary is just plain WRONG), and isn't taking advantage of Slashdot (anymore). It's time to stop complaining about him. At this point, you are just going for karma. I don't see any other reason to complain.
I think it is simple accessibility. People have found out how to run homebrew stuff off the PSP's memory stick. You don't need a vulnerable game (like some of the early XBox stuff, and some GC stuff) or a special device (like a wiring interface currently used for the DS). It runs off a memory stick that comes with the machine. All you need is a rather common USB cable and you are all set.
Compare that to the DS where you need (last time I checked) either a flash cart (do they sell those yet? That costs much more than a standard cable) or a special device (that you probably have to build yourself) or a hacked wifi card to send games that way (I don't know if that is possible yet either).
Basically, the PSP is easier to get your own code into right now.
Technically they are currently losing money, but your point is valid.
The truth is, this is RIAA math (not the RIAA, but same kind). Remember that 4 blank CDs may cost $2 or whatever, but their value is the $150 that a 4 disc box set might cost (because that is what you could pirate with it). Logic, as usual for these kind of groups, does not apply.
I couldn't download on my 1.5 Mb Comcast cable because it never runs near it's full speed.
This is why the TiVo type device is so critical in it. The TiVo or whatever downloads during off hours (which I guess you could specify). By doing this, it could still get things to you faster than the post office (especially since it could download things you shouldn't be able to watch yet, then "turn them on" when you "return" previous things). Plus, because it it caching it to watch later instead of streaming it straight for watching, it could throttle down to 20KB/s or so it wouldn't interfere with things. In the middle of the night (or whenever) it could throttle up to full speed.
Then again, there is something to be said for having a physical DVD that I can take with me and my laptop and such instead of having it stuck on my TiVo.
Yes, it was in the fine print as always. I just find disgusting that their solution to late fees is to just sell you the movie instead of charing you.
I have kept a movie too long and had to "sell it back" and pay the $1.25 restocking fee (or whatever it was). If that part didn't exist, I would be thoroughly sick. My family is terrible about returning things on time also (but, that was how they made almost all their money). Even if you waited too long to "sell it back" (30 days after they "sold it to you"), you can then sell it back like you can sell used tapes to them. You'll get some of your money and end up losing only $3-5 (they are also fair, charing you $8 for that old movie instead of the $20 a "new movie" costs).
But they advertised it like it was Netflix: no late fees ever (yeah, a little asterisk but still). The campaign got pulled because some Attorney Generals threatened to sue the for misleading advertising.
My point was more that their "solution" was just as bad, they went about it in a way that wasn't fully honest ("no late fees if you bring it back within a week of the due date, otherwise you bought it" in readable type on the commercials would have been fine). They are the largest video rental company (as far as I know) and I just see them as having lost all focus on the customer.
I think downloads are the only thing that will kill Netflix at this point.
They have options. They can run their own download service. They can brand another (OnDemand featuring Netflix) or sell theirs out (DirecTV Downloads provided by Netflix). But there are still problems with downloading (bandwidth for most people), and watching (sorry, I want to watch on my TV and I don't want to hook up my Mac to it). However, if they set up a download service right (like caching stuff from my queue onto my TiVo for me to watch) I will subscribe.
For what it's worth, PPV has been around for years and hasn't killed rentals. Something like OnDemand is closer, but I don't think it is there yet.
And of course I like Netflix, where as Comcast has earned the nickname Comcrap by gutting and killing my local cable company and offering us subpar service under a legalized monopoly. Timewarner is better in my eyes, but still quite down there due to previous experiences.
They have a brand, loyalty, and trust. They can survive if they play their cards right. They can probably afford to lose a hand or two and still come out ahead.
I used to like them. For movies, they can't hold a candle to Netflix's selection, etc in their brick and mortar stores. I don't know about their online service, but Netflix is great (there is a distribution center within about 40 miles of me so my turnaround is very fast).
But I don't like blockbuster. We'll ignore all the scratched discs and such that the stores would give me (almost no problems in that way from Netflix). I recieved 2 broken discs from BB in about 3 years of renting, compared to 1 in 2 years at Netflix. And if you consider how you get the discs, that doesn't look too good.
But what are their prices now? I'll ignore the "2 day rental" scam they run on popular movies. They used to be $4 for everything. Now they are like $6 for a movie and $8 for a game. EIGHT DOLLARS TO RENT A GAME. I also enjoy how they sell anything you keep out too long to you. That is how their no late fees program works. You can reverse the charge within 30 days and pay a restocking fee, but the fact they don't advertise this fact in that no late fees campaign ticks me off.
Mostly it is the price raises that they keep doing. If it wasn't for video games (I don't get enough time to play them to make Gamefly worth my while otherwise I would HAPPILY subscribe) I wouldn't go near the place.
So, from my point of view, here is what happened:
I left BB because their service/selection was terrible
I joined Netflix
I found I LOVED Netflix
BB Gets mad they are no longer the big-cahoona in town
So they make a competing service and expect people (who all seem to hate them as much as me) to switch from a company they love (Netflix) or no mail rentals to BB's mail rental service
People either laugh at them or ignore them
Netflix proffits.
Never tried BB's program. Never thought of it. I'm surprised it lasted this long. Is Wal*Mart still doing this, no, they sold out to Netflix didn't they?
That's right, WAL*MART FAILED. Surely BB could do it where WAL*MART couldn't.
I've only talked to 2 people who tried BB's program. They both (former and current Netflix subscribers who tried it because of the price) said the selection was worse, the availability was worse, the turnaround was worse. Only the price was better.
And at $2 a month (wasn't that the difference?) no one cared. Netflix later dropped their rates in response anyway, IIRC.
Time to die BB. You're like Radio Shack and Toys R Us. You are not even a shadow of your former self. You're a dead man walking. You can try to switch industries (like RS did) and stay as a bit of a joke (and with their GameRush crud, this looks like their plan), or slowly wither and die (like Toys R Us is doing).
Long live Netflix. They (along with TiVo) have completely changed the way I watch TV. They have a great price for the service, and only continue to impress me.
COBOL is not an introduction-to-object-oriented-programming kinda language.
That said, depending on your area, DeVry does teach COBOL (at the higher levels) because the local companies that use COBOL want competent programmers without having to train them in it themselves.
I have a term left at my local DeVry in CIS. I work part time at the school so I've known about this for a short while.
First off, as others have mentioned, they are both fine languages. It is not like you are choosing between Basic and C++. I should note that I don't know C# (never looked into it). My understanding is that C# will be the new OO language for introduction to OO and programming, and that you will learn Java later (the Business Programming class that is VB.Net now will move to Java, I think). So you'll end up seeing them both.
Which to choose? I would go with C#. Everyone after you will be taking it, and DeVry is very MS centric so having that early.Net learning may make your life a little easier later. You can go with Java, but you will be a last of your breed (untill they decided to switch again in 5 years or whatever). Personally I like Java better than I think I'd like C#, but it is partially choice. Also as one of the first C#ers, they may be very interested in getting you to work in the ASC if you would be interested in that (providing you are good, etc). You can start as soon as your second term.
On the Java plus side, there will already be many students who know the language and will be able to help you (like in the Acedemic Support Center). Java is still a big language that "everyone" wants (seems like most job descriptions want you to know Java these days).
If there is more I can do to answer your question, just reply. In short, I would say C# but it really is a toss-up in my mind and not a clear answer.
That was what I figured, since something like GTK or QT would be doing their own drawing using the OS functions (I would think). I'm a little surprised that nVidia is having this trouble and not ATI. Based on my experiences with both companies, I would think it would be the other way around.
But I wonder what caused it? Was it a change in Blender, or one in an OS X update. Curious.
I just finished reading it, and the didn't run any performance tests (which I would have liked to have seen). They were comparing options, features, prices, etc. The only mention of performance was things like "here are some neat tunable options that affect performance." and "but performance won't scale that well because you are limited to one CPU" (not direct quotes). This article is an overview, not a "lab test". I'm not sure where that came from. The original article says they were "tested" also. They installed all the products and poked around, but no performance numbers were presented at all.
All the DBs that were reviewed were the "junior" versions like the MS one. MySQL was the "token open source" entry. They HAD to compare MySQL because there is no MySQL junior like the rest of the products, and they do mention that it was designed to compete with Oracle or DB2 and not other little DBs.
It's obvious that you only skimmed it, in the first page it answers both of these questions. They are using the Microsoft Express beta because that is MS's newest product. It is almost out and would not be fare to review a product that will disappear soon. They note ALL of this. Plus they are only showing features, not performance, so being a beta doesn't really hurt it.
As for SQL Server Standard, they are showing "junior" databases, designed for small businesses. They have the little version of DB2, the little version of Oracle, etc. They are not comparing enterprise level DBs. I believe there was a sentence that said they were working on that.
I agree with others that they should have included ProstreSQL, but they didn't. As it is, MySQL shows up VERY competitively. The only other DB that was free was the MS one which had MAJOR limitations (only one CPU will be used, must be on Windows, etc).
Really, using the beta MS product was probably the most fair thing to do.
Well that's surprising. For reference, it is ONLY with an nVidia card (my 15" PB's Radeon 9700 shows menus under 10.4.3, I just tested with the new download).
How odd that one graphics card would work while the other wouldn't. Are they drawing their own menus and stuff in OpenGL or something?
Sorry, but I call bull. What good does a shortage do MS? Hype? So what?
Scenario A: MS is capable of making 500,000 units and delivering them to the USA. They do and sell 450,000 by the end of the year (I think they'd sell out, but I'll be cautious). They therefor take in 450,000 * $350 (average price of the two SKUs), or $157,500,000 gross.
Scenario B: MS is capable of making 500,000 units and delivering them to the USA. They make 300,000 and sell them all fast. They end up with tons of pent up demand (150,000 ready buyers according to my numbers). XBox 360s go for as high as $1000 each on eBay. MS makes 300,000 * $350 (because they only get retail) or $105,000,000 dollars. They lost out on a possible $52,500,000 which would be 33% or ONE THIRD of their possible gross intake.
So by making a shortage they:
Make less money (by 33% with my fictional number, probably could sell MANY more than my guess)
Frustrate consumers
Have fewer consoles to sell software for
Make buyers hold back until they are able to get one by which time the PS3 hype machine will be in full spin
Get lots of press
I see ONE of those that is good for them. That means they traded $50 MILLION for good press. Don't you think that $25 million could have bought them good press?
Your logic makes absolutely no business sense. The only way your idea would work would be if (as someone in an article suggested, someone from Forbes or CNN perhaps) MS sold them auction format or on a sliding scale against demand so that when the 360s sell for $800, MS gets $780 of it instead of $330.
But they didn't do that. So a false shortage makes NO ECONOMIC OR BUSINESS SENSE. If you disagree, please (using my hypothetical numbers) show me how they would have derived more than $50,000,000 worth of benefit with the false shortage.
I agree with you completely. But there were very obvious deficiencies in the Half-Life character models (in terms of polygon count, mostly) where you see a more recent games (my favorite example: Resident Evil 4 on the 'Cube) that look very realistic (no obvious polygon edges). Yeah, things can get better, but they look good enough.
Previous enhancements served a major purpose. Going from the NES to the SNES gave us tons more pixels and millions of colors. Going to the PS gave us 3D, and the PS2 gave us much better models. But the leap isn't as obvious as it used to be. There isn't this overarching obvious difference right now like there was at the time of those previous transitions.
But most of all, I agree with one of your main points. Graphics are easy. That is the main reason we have been driving at them for so many years. There have been very obvious improvements to make. It is immediately obvious to anyone that you have improved things (where with AI it might not be). It is a problem that is easy to throw hardware at.
Your point about "good enough" is well taken. I'm sure I'll do that too one day. But in the past there has been such a difference between generations that it was obvious to me. Now I see the new games (like on the 360) and my reaction is "That's nice" or "It looks like a PC game". Not "Wow! I must have one!".
I think we've reached points like this in the past. I think the SNES was VERY close to this point (for the available memory). SNES games look more than "good enough", and you can show them (like Super Mario World or Yoshi's Island) to a kid today and they'll like it (where if you show them a PS1 game, often they'll comment on how ugly it is).
It will be interesting to see what comes of all this. I'm just glad Nintendo isn't part of this "polygons, polygons, polygons" drumbeat that everyone else (including nVidia and ATI, not that I blame them) is sounding.
Mario party 7? People keep buying them, and each one is better than the last (not worth the upgrade, but if you don't own one, they are fun).
Mario Soccer? That is supposed to be one of the best arcade soccer games out. There aren't many arcade soccer games.
Mario Golf? An amazingly fun and accessable game. It got me into video game golf.
Mario DDR? Arguable, but there wasn't much in the DDR family on the 'Cube. And since places are having trouble keeping it in stock, so people obviously like it.
Ice Climbers 3D? Doesn't exists (except perhaps in rumors). And the last game was like 15+ years ago, so how is that "yet another of the same old thing"?
The closest thing to a complaint you have is that Nintendo tends to put Mario and friends in all their games instead of random new characters? If all the games were bad, that would be one thing. But they tend to be the best (Mario Kart) or one of the best (Mario Golf) in the genre.
And if you want to yell at people for "pointless" sequels, why not yell at the rest of the industry first (especially any sports game). The last true Mario game came out 4 years ago in 2001 or 2002. The last Zelda was 2 or 3 years ago on a home console (there was Minish Cap, but that's a bit of a different beast). How many Need For Speed games have come out in the last few years?
I'm really tired of hearing about how Nintendo is making a big mistake with this "only 2-3x more powerful than the GC" thing.
Can you HONESTLY tell me that is true? Are you saying that Resident Evil 4 on the 'Cube is too ugly to look at? Is it so full of graphics flaws? If that game didn't come out on the 'Cube but came out on the 360 I think everyone would be talking about howt he "age of next-gen was here". God of War looked amazing on the PS2. I saw no graphical faults there. Yet that platform is almost 5 years old. Psychonauts looked amazing on the XBox an created a great virtual world. It, too, looked amazing on current hardware. If you look at Project Gotham 2, GT4, and many other games that are currently out, the current consoles look amazing. How about Burnout: Revenge on the XBox? Is that too ugly for you?
Can you honestly tell me that those graphics aren't good enough for you? Sure they could be a touch better (and thanks to that additional power, the Revolution can give you more polygons, higher resolution, and antialiasing), but they are about good enough.
Previous generations have given us huge leaps in graphics. NES->SNES->PS->PS2. But now the leap isn't that big. Things look better, don't get me wrong, but they looked about "good enough" already. We'll get a small improvement, and that is all we need. And let's not forget, that graphics are not the end-all-be-all of games (Katamari, anyone?).
The revolution is important for the games, and the new controller. They are taking a risk (as opposed to everyone else who is basically making the SNES with better graphics for the 30th time). People talk about how it is "just a controller" and a gimmick, but they said that about the DS too and look how that has turned out (outselling the PSP 3:1). Nintendo has even said they have been holding something back that will make things even better. I want to know.
But without that, what is the revolution? It is a console by Nitendo (the company who's consoles I always end up playing the most due to the most great games). It has better graphics than current consoles (which are already bordering on good-enough land), will play a HUGE backed library (NES, SNES, N64, Cube; plus it looks like Sega will be putting their library up too), will have an innovative controller for new kinds of games (you can apparently play Twilight Princess for the Cube with it, they built that into the game), in a small box (the XBox 360 is still rather big) which I expect to be quite (remember when consoles were nearly silent? I'm looking at you XBoxes and PS2). It will have a reasonable price point ($400? Too much. And how much does Sony want? I think that $200 to $250 is good, with rumors as low as $150). It is everything I want/need in a console.
Nintendo's strategy? Graphics look good enough now, keep innovating gameplay. They aren't competing with Nvidia and ATI anymore (PS, XBox).
Good for them. Someone remembers its about the games.
Really, aren't graphics good enough? We have the memory and storage to make 2D games where every object is a 100dpi hand-drawn animation in millions of colors. We can make amazingly realistic worlds (GT4, etc) or cool fantasy scapes that look great (Psychonauts, Mario Sunshine, etc). And if the Revolution really has the displacement mapping, it will only look better.
Good for Nitnedo.
PS: PLEASE reply with how graphics aren't good enough. Sure there are some ugly games out there, but I think we have ample proof that isn't a hardware limitation in most cases.
I only got my Mac last year and I had only used them sporadically before that. I know that IE was the king of the hill for a while, but I think that the writing was on the wall that IE for Mac was dead when Safari came out (and probably before that).
I'm still amazed that it is still included on Macs (or was up until very recently). It is so out of place with the rest of OS X these days (it has the old 10.0 or 10.1 candy stripes, for example) that it is almost jarring the few times I've had to use it.
The reason they stopped supporting the Mac (I don't think anyone will really disagree with me) was Safari. Apple made a web browser (and a VERY good one at that) and MS said "We don't want to play".
Now I should mention that IE for the Mac is a piece of junk, and I assume it was back in 2003 when they stopped activly working on it. It's slow, clunky, and can't hold a candle to Safari or Firefox.
Check out this link to Kotaku. It has a picture and text saying that the launch is going so bad in Japan that since the retailers are unable to sell the consoles (which cost $350 in USD) back to MS, they are having a fire-sale within a day or two of launch selling the systems for about $150 USD, less than HALF the retail price.
Compare that to here in the US where people are pay upwards of $800 in scam auctions on eBay for a picture of the 360, or a link to where to buy one, or an empty box.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view this launch continues to look botched.
I agree, it's too late now. But Japan uses NTSC like us, so the hardware is easier shared (European consoles that output PAL wouldn't work here). But my point is that probably ALL the consoles were made in Asia. They should have planned to ship more here in the first pace.
It is too late. They would never make up their money (ignoring the fact they already sell at a loss) by re-imaging all those 360s and packaging them in new boxes and then shipping them to the US.
But they wouldn't have had that problem if they shipped 'em here in the first place.
This is something I think I commented on the other day.
In the US, the system is POPULAR and we got 400k units, which was not nearly enough to meet demand.
In Japan, where the system is UNPOPULAR they got ?k units, which was way more than enough to meet demand.
Why not send fewer units to Japan so you can SEND THEM WHERE PEOPLE ARE WAITING IN LINE TO BUY THEM? I saw pictures somewhere (Kotaku?) that was like the PSP launch in the US. They had pictures of stores with piles of the systems that no one was buying.
If they wanted to run a "It's sold out so it must be great" campaign here in the US, why not run it in Japan and send those extra units here? They would still sell out here, but they would also get in the hands of more consumers. And in both countries you would be able to play the "scarcity" card about how popular it is.
Instead, we didn't get enough (where we want it), they got too many (where they don't want it), MS could have made more $$$, and US consumers are upset (like someone posted the other day, they heard a kid say they'd just buy a PS3 if they wouldn't be able to get a 360 until Feb.).
I don't understand this launch. So many things seem... off. I think they would have done a MUTCH better job if they had just waiting until after Christmas like they almost did.
Slashdot Mirror
My mother has a digital camera and she is constantly dissapointed by it. It is a nice camera, but like all digitials it seems to need more light to get a decent picture than a film camera with ISO 400 in it (boot the ISO to that on the camera, it still needs more light and the noise is horrendus). Having IS would be a HUGE help for that reason, and others (light camera + slightly shakey hands = blurry pictures). About the only time she gets good pictures out of it is in full sun (she could other times too with some learning and trial and error, but I don't blame her for not wanting to spend the time).
If the camera doesn't have Image Stabilization, skip it. Go to a store and try a camera with it on and off. The difference is amazing. You can see more about it if you read a review of the S2 IS or other cameras that have it.
Now back a few months ago when each story he submitted went to his blog, which was invariably a link to the REAL story, I agreed with you. He was just getting clicks and ad-views. Slashdot was being used to make him money.
But look at the story that was posted today (and the other recent posts by Roland). There are no links to his blog (except his name). So unless you are TRYING to get there, you get the same links I or anyone else would have submitted.
He finds interesting stuff, submits good summaries (as opposed to those that get through every once in a while where you have to wonder "What does that mean?" or the summary is just plain WRONG), and isn't taking advantage of Slashdot (anymore). It's time to stop complaining about him. At this point, you are just going for karma. I don't see any other reason to complain.
Compare that to the DS where you need (last time I checked) either a flash cart (do they sell those yet? That costs much more than a standard cable) or a special device (that you probably have to build yourself) or a hacked wifi card to send games that way (I don't know if that is possible yet either).
Basically, the PSP is easier to get your own code into right now.
The truth is, this is RIAA math (not the RIAA, but same kind). Remember that 4 blank CDs may cost $2 or whatever, but their value is the $150 that a 4 disc box set might cost (because that is what you could pirate with it). Logic, as usual for these kind of groups, does not apply.
This is why the TiVo type device is so critical in it. The TiVo or whatever downloads during off hours (which I guess you could specify). By doing this, it could still get things to you faster than the post office (especially since it could download things you shouldn't be able to watch yet, then "turn them on" when you "return" previous things). Plus, because it it caching it to watch later instead of streaming it straight for watching, it could throttle down to 20KB/s or so it wouldn't interfere with things. In the middle of the night (or whenever) it could throttle up to full speed.
Then again, there is something to be said for having a physical DVD that I can take with me and my laptop and such instead of having it stuck on my TiVo.
I have kept a movie too long and had to "sell it back" and pay the $1.25 restocking fee (or whatever it was). If that part didn't exist, I would be thoroughly sick. My family is terrible about returning things on time also (but, that was how they made almost all their money). Even if you waited too long to "sell it back" (30 days after they "sold it to you"), you can then sell it back like you can sell used tapes to them. You'll get some of your money and end up losing only $3-5 (they are also fair, charing you $8 for that old movie instead of the $20 a "new movie" costs).
But they advertised it like it was Netflix: no late fees ever (yeah, a little asterisk but still). The campaign got pulled because some Attorney Generals threatened to sue the for misleading advertising.
My point was more that their "solution" was just as bad, they went about it in a way that wasn't fully honest ("no late fees if you bring it back within a week of the due date, otherwise you bought it" in readable type on the commercials would have been fine). They are the largest video rental company (as far as I know) and I just see them as having lost all focus on the customer.
They have options. They can run their own download service. They can brand another (OnDemand featuring Netflix) or sell theirs out (DirecTV Downloads provided by Netflix). But there are still problems with downloading (bandwidth for most people), and watching (sorry, I want to watch on my TV and I don't want to hook up my Mac to it). However, if they set up a download service right (like caching stuff from my queue onto my TiVo for me to watch) I will subscribe.
For what it's worth, PPV has been around for years and hasn't killed rentals. Something like OnDemand is closer, but I don't think it is there yet.
And of course I like Netflix, where as Comcast has earned the nickname Comcrap by gutting and killing my local cable company and offering us subpar service under a legalized monopoly. Timewarner is better in my eyes, but still quite down there due to previous experiences.
They have a brand, loyalty, and trust. They can survive if they play their cards right. They can probably afford to lose a hand or two and still come out ahead.
But I don't like blockbuster. We'll ignore all the scratched discs and such that the stores would give me (almost no problems in that way from Netflix). I recieved 2 broken discs from BB in about 3 years of renting, compared to 1 in 2 years at Netflix. And if you consider how you get the discs, that doesn't look too good.
But what are their prices now? I'll ignore the "2 day rental" scam they run on popular movies. They used to be $4 for everything. Now they are like $6 for a movie and $8 for a game. EIGHT DOLLARS TO RENT A GAME. I also enjoy how they sell anything you keep out too long to you. That is how their no late fees program works. You can reverse the charge within 30 days and pay a restocking fee, but the fact they don't advertise this fact in that no late fees campaign ticks me off.
Mostly it is the price raises that they keep doing. If it wasn't for video games (I don't get enough time to play them to make Gamefly worth my while otherwise I would HAPPILY subscribe) I wouldn't go near the place.
So, from my point of view, here is what happened:
Never tried BB's program. Never thought of it. I'm surprised it lasted this long. Is Wal*Mart still doing this, no, they sold out to Netflix didn't they?
That's right, WAL*MART FAILED. Surely BB could do it where WAL*MART couldn't.
I've only talked to 2 people who tried BB's program. They both (former and current Netflix subscribers who tried it because of the price) said the selection was worse, the availability was worse, the turnaround was worse. Only the price was better.
And at $2 a month (wasn't that the difference?) no one cared. Netflix later dropped their rates in response anyway, IIRC.
Time to die BB. You're like Radio Shack and Toys R Us. You are not even a shadow of your former self. You're a dead man walking. You can try to switch industries (like RS did) and stay as a bit of a joke (and with their GameRush crud, this looks like their plan), or slowly wither and die (like Toys R Us is doing).
Long live Netflix. They (along with TiVo) have completely changed the way I watch TV. They have a great price for the service, and only continue to impress me.
That said, depending on your area, DeVry does teach COBOL (at the higher levels) because the local companies that use COBOL want competent programmers without having to train them in it themselves.
It doesn't matter. As a DeVry student he gets a free software bundle that includes:
.NET
Windows 2000 (or was it 2k3?)
Windows XP Pro
Microsoft Office Pro
Microsoft Visio
Microsoft Visual Studio
and something else.
Price is not an issue in this.
First off, as others have mentioned, they are both fine languages. It is not like you are choosing between Basic and C++. I should note that I don't know C# (never looked into it). My understanding is that C# will be the new OO language for introduction to OO and programming, and that you will learn Java later (the Business Programming class that is VB.Net now will move to Java, I think). So you'll end up seeing them both.
Which to choose? I would go with C#. Everyone after you will be taking it, and DeVry is very MS centric so having that early .Net learning may make your life a little easier later. You can go with Java, but you will be a last of your breed (untill they decided to switch again in 5 years or whatever). Personally I like Java better than I think I'd like C#, but it is partially choice. Also as one of the first C#ers, they may be very interested in getting you to work in the ASC if you would be interested in that (providing you are good, etc). You can start as soon as your second term.
On the Java plus side, there will already be many students who know the language and will be able to help you (like in the Acedemic Support Center). Java is still a big language that "everyone" wants (seems like most job descriptions want you to know Java these days).
If there is more I can do to answer your question, just reply. In short, I would say C# but it really is a toss-up in my mind and not a clear answer.
But I wonder what caused it? Was it a change in Blender, or one in an OS X update. Curious.
I just finished reading it, and the didn't run any performance tests (which I would have liked to have seen). They were comparing options, features, prices, etc. The only mention of performance was things like "here are some neat tunable options that affect performance." and "but performance won't scale that well because you are limited to one CPU" (not direct quotes). This article is an overview, not a "lab test". I'm not sure where that came from. The original article says they were "tested" also. They installed all the products and poked around, but no performance numbers were presented at all.
All the DBs that were reviewed were the "junior" versions like the MS one. MySQL was the "token open source" entry. They HAD to compare MySQL because there is no MySQL junior like the rest of the products, and they do mention that it was designed to compete with Oracle or DB2 and not other little DBs.
As for SQL Server Standard, they are showing "junior" databases, designed for small businesses. They have the little version of DB2, the little version of Oracle, etc. They are not comparing enterprise level DBs. I believe there was a sentence that said they were working on that.
I agree with others that they should have included ProstreSQL, but they didn't. As it is, MySQL shows up VERY competitively. The only other DB that was free was the MS one which had MAJOR limitations (only one CPU will be used, must be on Windows, etc).
Really, using the beta MS product was probably the most fair thing to do.
How odd that one graphics card would work while the other wouldn't. Are they drawing their own menus and stuff in OpenGL or something?
Scenario A: MS is capable of making 500,000 units and delivering them to the USA. They do and sell 450,000 by the end of the year (I think they'd sell out, but I'll be cautious). They therefor take in 450,000 * $350 (average price of the two SKUs), or $157,500,000 gross.
Scenario B: MS is capable of making 500,000 units and delivering them to the USA. They make 300,000 and sell them all fast. They end up with tons of pent up demand (150,000 ready buyers according to my numbers). XBox 360s go for as high as $1000 each on eBay. MS makes 300,000 * $350 (because they only get retail) or $105,000,000 dollars. They lost out on a possible $52,500,000 which would be 33% or ONE THIRD of their possible gross intake.
So by making a shortage they:
I see ONE of those that is good for them. That means they traded $50 MILLION for good press. Don't you think that $25 million could have bought them good press?
Your logic makes absolutely no business sense. The only way your idea would work would be if (as someone in an article suggested, someone from Forbes or CNN perhaps) MS sold them auction format or on a sliding scale against demand so that when the 360s sell for $800, MS gets $780 of it instead of $330.
But they didn't do that. So a false shortage makes NO ECONOMIC OR BUSINESS SENSE. If you disagree, please (using my hypothetical numbers) show me how they would have derived more than $50,000,000 worth of benefit with the false shortage.
Previous enhancements served a major purpose. Going from the NES to the SNES gave us tons more pixels and millions of colors. Going to the PS gave us 3D, and the PS2 gave us much better models. But the leap isn't as obvious as it used to be. There isn't this overarching obvious difference right now like there was at the time of those previous transitions.
But most of all, I agree with one of your main points. Graphics are easy. That is the main reason we have been driving at them for so many years. There have been very obvious improvements to make. It is immediately obvious to anyone that you have improved things (where with AI it might not be). It is a problem that is easy to throw hardware at.
Your point about "good enough" is well taken. I'm sure I'll do that too one day. But in the past there has been such a difference between generations that it was obvious to me. Now I see the new games (like on the 360) and my reaction is "That's nice" or "It looks like a PC game". Not "Wow! I must have one!".
I think we've reached points like this in the past. I think the SNES was VERY close to this point (for the available memory). SNES games look more than "good enough", and you can show them (like Super Mario World or Yoshi's Island) to a kid today and they'll like it (where if you show them a PS1 game, often they'll comment on how ugly it is).
It will be interesting to see what comes of all this. I'm just glad Nintendo isn't part of this "polygons, polygons, polygons" drumbeat that everyone else (including nVidia and ATI, not that I blame them) is sounding.
Mario party 7? People keep buying them, and each one is better than the last (not worth the upgrade, but if you don't own one, they are fun).
Mario Soccer? That is supposed to be one of the best arcade soccer games out. There aren't many arcade soccer games.
Mario Golf? An amazingly fun and accessable game. It got me into video game golf.
Mario DDR? Arguable, but there wasn't much in the DDR family on the 'Cube. And since places are having trouble keeping it in stock, so people obviously like it.
Ice Climbers 3D? Doesn't exists (except perhaps in rumors). And the last game was like 15+ years ago, so how is that "yet another of the same old thing"?
The closest thing to a complaint you have is that Nintendo tends to put Mario and friends in all their games instead of random new characters? If all the games were bad, that would be one thing. But they tend to be the best (Mario Kart) or one of the best (Mario Golf) in the genre.
And if you want to yell at people for "pointless" sequels, why not yell at the rest of the industry first (especially any sports game). The last true Mario game came out 4 years ago in 2001 or 2002. The last Zelda was 2 or 3 years ago on a home console (there was Minish Cap, but that's a bit of a different beast). How many Need For Speed games have come out in the last few years?
Can you HONESTLY tell me that is true? Are you saying that Resident Evil 4 on the 'Cube is too ugly to look at? Is it so full of graphics flaws? If that game didn't come out on the 'Cube but came out on the 360 I think everyone would be talking about howt he "age of next-gen was here". God of War looked amazing on the PS2. I saw no graphical faults there. Yet that platform is almost 5 years old. Psychonauts looked amazing on the XBox an created a great virtual world. It, too, looked amazing on current hardware. If you look at Project Gotham 2, GT4, and many other games that are currently out, the current consoles look amazing. How about Burnout: Revenge on the XBox? Is that too ugly for you?
Can you honestly tell me that those graphics aren't good enough for you? Sure they could be a touch better (and thanks to that additional power, the Revolution can give you more polygons, higher resolution, and antialiasing), but they are about good enough.
Previous generations have given us huge leaps in graphics. NES->SNES->PS->PS2. But now the leap isn't that big. Things look better, don't get me wrong, but they looked about "good enough" already. We'll get a small improvement, and that is all we need. And let's not forget, that graphics are not the end-all-be-all of games (Katamari, anyone?).
The revolution is important for the games, and the new controller. They are taking a risk (as opposed to everyone else who is basically making the SNES with better graphics for the 30th time). People talk about how it is "just a controller" and a gimmick, but they said that about the DS too and look how that has turned out (outselling the PSP 3:1). Nintendo has even said they have been holding something back that will make things even better. I want to know.
But without that, what is the revolution? It is a console by Nitendo (the company who's consoles I always end up playing the most due to the most great games). It has better graphics than current consoles (which are already bordering on good-enough land), will play a HUGE backed library (NES, SNES, N64, Cube; plus it looks like Sega will be putting their library up too), will have an innovative controller for new kinds of games (you can apparently play Twilight Princess for the Cube with it, they built that into the game), in a small box (the XBox 360 is still rather big) which I expect to be quite (remember when consoles were nearly silent? I'm looking at you XBoxes and PS2). It will have a reasonable price point ($400? Too much. And how much does Sony want? I think that $200 to $250 is good, with rumors as low as $150). It is everything I want/need in a console.
Nintendo's strategy? Graphics look good enough now, keep innovating gameplay. They aren't competing with Nvidia and ATI anymore (PS, XBox).
Good for them. Someone remembers its about the games.
Really, aren't graphics good enough? We have the memory and storage to make 2D games where every object is a 100dpi hand-drawn animation in millions of colors. We can make amazingly realistic worlds (GT4, etc) or cool fantasy scapes that look great (Psychonauts, Mario Sunshine, etc). And if the Revolution really has the displacement mapping, it will only look better.
Good for Nitnedo.
PS: PLEASE reply with how graphics aren't good enough. Sure there are some ugly games out there, but I think we have ample proof that isn't a hardware limitation in most cases.
I'm still amazed that it is still included on Macs (or was up until very recently). It is so out of place with the rest of OS X these days (it has the old 10.0 or 10.1 candy stripes, for example) that it is almost jarring the few times I've had to use it.
Now I should mention that IE for the Mac is a piece of junk, and I assume it was back in 2003 when they stopped activly working on it. It's slow, clunky, and can't hold a candle to Safari or Firefox.
Check out this link to Kotaku. It has a picture and text saying that the launch is going so bad in Japan that since the retailers are unable to sell the consoles (which cost $350 in USD) back to MS, they are having a fire-sale within a day or two of launch selling the systems for about $150 USD, less than HALF the retail price.
Compare that to here in the US where people are pay upwards of $800 in scam auctions on eBay for a picture of the 360, or a link to where to buy one, or an empty box.
I'm sorry, but from my point of view this launch continues to look botched.
It is too late. They would never make up their money (ignoring the fact they already sell at a loss) by re-imaging all those 360s and packaging them in new boxes and then shipping them to the US.
But they wouldn't have had that problem if they shipped 'em here in the first place.
In the US, the system is POPULAR and we got 400k units, which was not nearly enough to meet demand.
In Japan, where the system is UNPOPULAR they got ?k units, which was way more than enough to meet demand.
Why not send fewer units to Japan so you can SEND THEM WHERE PEOPLE ARE WAITING IN LINE TO BUY THEM? I saw pictures somewhere (Kotaku?) that was like the PSP launch in the US. They had pictures of stores with piles of the systems that no one was buying.
If they wanted to run a "It's sold out so it must be great" campaign here in the US, why not run it in Japan and send those extra units here? They would still sell out here, but they would also get in the hands of more consumers. And in both countries you would be able to play the "scarcity" card about how popular it is.
Instead, we didn't get enough (where we want it), they got too many (where they don't want it), MS could have made more $$$, and US consumers are upset (like someone posted the other day, they heard a kid say they'd just buy a PS3 if they wouldn't be able to get a 360 until Feb.).
I don't understand this launch. So many things seem... off. I think they would have done a MUTCH better job if they had just waiting until after Christmas like they almost did.