I agree that it's a bit shady if they are capping like that, but it's up to the competitors to challenge them. If nobody can, then Intel really has earned their advantage and should make as much money off it as the market allows.
That's a great point. I've bought several games off of Steam more or less on impulse because they were $20. The weekend sales and things can be great too, if you happen to catch something you're interested in but didn't want to spend $50 on.
Maybe it's something to do with where you live, but I've never paid $80 for a game. The most I've ever paid was $70 for a collector's edition of a favorite series. They're generally $50 for me, maybe $60 for a big title. It's also possible I'm just out of the loop, but that's really beside the point. The article and summary seem to be focusing more on indie games, not the mainstream ones by EA and company that cost you $60 for a re-textured version of last year's game. (NOW WITH IMPROVED PHYSICS SO YOUR SIDEKICK'S BOOBS BOUNCE REALISTICALLY!)
Wait... maybe I would be willing to pay more for that...
I agree that they aren't intrusive when implemented correctly and casual gamers won't even notice, but there's been at least one instance where people have had a problem with ads in games. I believe it was a fairly popular title, too.
I very much agree with you; stupid users will almost always find a way. However, I feel something should be added...
As irritating as it might be, UAC (or third party software) can help to an extent. If none of the software being used needs admin privileges, set everyone up with a user account. Don't give out the admin password and allow only what they need. If users aren't allowed to change anything more important than their background image, that can go a long way. Maybe it won't go over well if it seems like you're treating them like children, but (as bad as it sounds) some users need it.
If that were to happen, I think we'd see a push to smaller media, more in line with SD cards. That said, I really doubt any change back will last long. The internet is just too convenient for these tiny limits to last. There are three main possibilities that I see:
1. Legislation will be passed to protect people from these ridiculous prices. 2. The outcry in progress will push people to drop the expensive services, prompting the ISPs to be more reasonable. 3. Competitors will crop up, forcing the same. With advances in wireless technology, the infrastructure is becoming less of a barrier. With the massive prices/tiny caps, these new technologies might become viable.
I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic here, but I've noticed something: People these days are apathetic to nearly everything until it hits them in the wallet.
I agree with him that it CAN be a bad influence, but it's up to the parents to help put things in proper perspective, preferably before kids are desensitized to the violence. It's unfortunate that games can be so realistic now, but kids have been playing shooting and fighting games since the beginning of consciousness. Is it ideal? No, but conflict is what shapes the human race and we haven't yet outgrown violent conflict.
Wow.... I'm going to karma hell for this but... WTF is wrong with you Americans? Have you been SO blinded by the media and patriotism and hatred that you actually believe this? Don't be conned. The US could have stopped the trial at any point.
What the hell is wrong with you arrogant pricks who lump all US Americans into some ignorant, hateful, and overly-patriotic club? It's a huge nation with a huge population that is significantly less dense and more diverse than most other nations. To put the entire population all in one group is asinine. You're no better than the people you're condemning.
Yes, I could be more polite about it, but I figure I'll follow suit and join you in karma hell...
I don't follow what you're saying. What evidence? It's my OPINION. I, personally, don't think they should ignore the Google clickers. Have you ever heard the saying, opinions are like assholes? (Everyone has one and most of them stink.) Well I have one and nobody has to like it, but it's not wrong. I'm also not out to prove anyone wrong. I'm presenting my view, which is different from other peoples' views. Isn't that the point of this?
Maybe someone's already done a cost-benefit analysis, how would I know? Prove to me that it wouldn't be worth it to spend a bit catering to Google clickers. It seems that it'd be more dangerous to completely ignore a group (again, my opinion) than to throw a few bucks into trying to keep them, especially a group who gets a significant portion of their news online.
Little side note: You call me a nerd for what reason exactly? I am one and damn proud of it, but 'nerd' and 'business person' are not mutually exclusive.
I partly agree with you, but I'll frequently follow a link from Google news, then click on other links from that same news site. The key is to show me something that I'll think is relevant and interesting.
It's the same mistake (I think it's a mistake, anyway) that I see all the time when it comes to money: "If Project A works, it'll pay more than Project B, so let's put everything into A." Why? Do both. This isn't a simple video game where there's a solution that is 100% foolproof. Work hard to keep people on your site, but don't ignore the Google folks. Give them relevant links to follow and they'll spend more time on your site. If the news is fair, impartial, and interesting, they might start using your search function too.
So-called 'reputable' publications aren't the only or even the best place to get news. There are many websites that I trust much more than the national newspapers.
Regardless, it's ultimately up to the (intelligent/informed) reader to determine whether news is BS or not. The news should be under the same microscope regardless of where it came from.
Exactly. I've frequently chosen less powerful characters/builds in games because they're more fun.
If tank-like direct combat guys are common/overpowered in a game, I'll tend to go with a stealthy character. Or if everyone in a shooter gravitates to one or two specific weapons, I'll often pick one that has some sort of use or meaning beyond being the easiest or most powerful. I find the game is much more satisfying like that, especially if you get to be good at it. It's just not very interesting for me to join a game, learn the same skill set as everyone else, and then join the mob of thousands of identical character builds.
My personal favorite is the Polywell, but there are a number of others. There are still issues of course, but with everything these groups are learning, I doubt it'll take 100 years.
Apple broke their compatibility and are arguably better off for it, BUT they have complete control over their hardware and a big chunk of their software. While it's a lot of work for them, they can realistically handle it in-house and have it nice and shiny by the time it leaves the building.
I think it's much harder for other companies/projects to make such a clean break. Don't get me wrong... I think it's necessary to do it once in a while to keep the code under control, but the install base (both users and hardware) and the uncontrolled nature of software for Windows and Linux makes it much, much more difficult.
The partial break Microsoft made with Vista was bad enough. If they had completely broken all the old software, it would have been disastrous for them. Gnome and KDE users are generally more knowledgeable and possibly a bit more tolerant to change than your typical Windows user, but there's still going to be a breaking point. I know that a lot of people gave up on KDE with 4.0 and many haven't gone back.
I guess what I'm saying in my ramblings is that both sides have merit. Personally, if there were some middle ground between Gnome and KDE, that's where I'd plant myself. I like that KDE is pushing the envelope, but I've never really liked using it.
Don't underestimate backwards compatibility. In a business environment, it's going to be one of the top things on the list. A business (especially a large one) can't simply switch because something else comes along. The cost to change and the (temporary) loss of productivity are too great.
I've got two monitors side by side, both at 1280x1024. I wouldn't call that tiny and, while some of my paths ARE pretty big, most of them are not huge.
You hit it on the head at the bottom, actually. I can't be bothered to resize the window every time. It's no better than the other two options unless I know I have to muck around in there for a while.
They've left the 'up' functionality in with a keyboard shortcut, what's so hard about letting us have a button?
My memory could be fuzzy, but backspace actually moves BACK, not up. If I didn't get to that point by clicking through the full directory structure, then no dice.
Why should I have to install or especially BUY something to get such basic functionality? I don't like having to make silly, unnecessary add-ons to my computer.
And before I get criticized for complaining about it on Slashdot, I only posted this originally because there was confusion about what actual problems people have with the breadcrumb system...
I agree that 2 gigs is better, but I've found Vista to be plenty usable with 1. Like I said, I don't extend that to gaming or graphics, but for standard email, word, etc...
I can't help that you don't believe me and, frankly, I don't care. Your experience isn't the only one in the world that matters...
Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little). Alt-Up is fine and I like keyboard shortcuts, but that one is awkward to get to with my hand on my mouse and I don't see any strong reason why they can't have left the up button or given more space for the tree...
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
Again, don't get me wrong. There are things I like about Vista and you'll see me fighting for it more often than against it, but some things just seem to me like they needed more work.
Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...
I'm sure there are people who have problems, but that doesn't mean it necessarily affects everybody. Blanket statements are just silly.
For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier. They've cluttered it up so much with the 'favorites' stuff that it interferes with my ability to use the directory structure that I've set up over the years.
There might be a couple of small exceptions, but everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.
Either 7 is exactly like Vista and they're stealing peoples' money or they're changing/improving things and breaking compatibility. Pick one.
Yes, I know there will be a reply to this that says it's Microsoft and they can do both, but let's cut the crap. They're trying and they're doing better now than they have in quite a while. Give them a tiny bit of credit just once...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's a bit shady if they are capping like that, but it's up to the competitors to challenge them. If nobody can, then Intel really has earned their advantage and should make as much money off it as the market allows.
That's a great point. I've bought several games off of Steam more or less on impulse because they were $20. The weekend sales and things can be great too, if you happen to catch something you're interested in but didn't want to spend $50 on.
Maybe it's something to do with where you live, but I've never paid $80 for a game. The most I've ever paid was $70 for a collector's edition of a favorite series. They're generally $50 for me, maybe $60 for a big title. It's also possible I'm just out of the loop, but that's really beside the point. The article and summary seem to be focusing more on indie games, not the mainstream ones by EA and company that cost you $60 for a re-textured version of last year's game. (NOW WITH IMPROVED PHYSICS SO YOUR SIDEKICK'S BOOBS BOUNCE REALISTICALLY!)
Wait... maybe I would be willing to pay more for that...
I agree that they aren't intrusive when implemented correctly and casual gamers won't even notice, but there's been at least one instance where people have had a problem with ads in games. I believe it was a fairly popular title, too.
I very much agree with you; stupid users will almost always find a way. However, I feel something should be added...
As irritating as it might be, UAC (or third party software) can help to an extent. If none of the software being used needs admin privileges, set everyone up with a user account. Don't give out the admin password and allow only what they need. If users aren't allowed to change anything more important than their background image, that can go a long way. Maybe it won't go over well if it seems like you're treating them like children, but (as bad as it sounds) some users need it.
If that were to happen, I think we'd see a push to smaller media, more in line with SD cards. That said, I really doubt any change back will last long. The internet is just too convenient for these tiny limits to last. There are three main possibilities that I see:
1. Legislation will be passed to protect people from these ridiculous prices.
2. The outcry in progress will push people to drop the expensive services, prompting the ISPs to be more reasonable.
3. Competitors will crop up, forcing the same. With advances in wireless technology, the infrastructure is becoming less of a barrier. With the massive prices/tiny caps, these new technologies might become viable.
I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic here, but I've noticed something:
People these days are apathetic to nearly everything until it hits them in the wallet.
I agree with him that it CAN be a bad influence, but it's up to the parents to help put things in proper perspective, preferably before kids are desensitized to the violence. It's unfortunate that games can be so realistic now, but kids have been playing shooting and fighting games since the beginning of consciousness. Is it ideal? No, but conflict is what shapes the human race and we haven't yet outgrown violent conflict.
And how would that be different from walking out with a console CD/DVD?
Wow.... I'm going to karma hell for this but... WTF is wrong with you Americans? Have you been SO blinded by the media and patriotism and hatred that you actually believe this? Don't be conned. The US could have stopped the trial at any point.
What the hell is wrong with you arrogant pricks who lump all US Americans into some ignorant, hateful, and overly-patriotic club? It's a huge nation with a huge population that is significantly less dense and more diverse than most other nations. To put the entire population all in one group is asinine. You're no better than the people you're condemning.
Yes, I could be more polite about it, but I figure I'll follow suit and join you in karma hell...
I don't follow what you're saying. What evidence? It's my OPINION. I, personally, don't think they should ignore the Google clickers. Have you ever heard the saying, opinions are like assholes? (Everyone has one and most of them stink.) Well I have one and nobody has to like it, but it's not wrong. I'm also not out to prove anyone wrong. I'm presenting my view, which is different from other peoples' views. Isn't that the point of this?
Maybe someone's already done a cost-benefit analysis, how would I know? Prove to me that it wouldn't be worth it to spend a bit catering to Google clickers. It seems that it'd be more dangerous to completely ignore a group (again, my opinion) than to throw a few bucks into trying to keep them, especially a group who gets a significant portion of their news online.
Little side note:
You call me a nerd for what reason exactly? I am one and damn proud of it, but 'nerd' and 'business person' are not mutually exclusive.
I partly agree with you, but I'll frequently follow a link from Google news, then click on other links from that same news site. The key is to show me something that I'll think is relevant and interesting.
It's the same mistake (I think it's a mistake, anyway) that I see all the time when it comes to money: "If Project A works, it'll pay more than Project B, so let's put everything into A." Why? Do both. This isn't a simple video game where there's a solution that is 100% foolproof. Work hard to keep people on your site, but don't ignore the Google folks. Give them relevant links to follow and they'll spend more time on your site. If the news is fair, impartial, and interesting, they might start using your search function too.
So-called 'reputable' publications aren't the only or even the best place to get news. There are many websites that I trust much more than the national newspapers.
Regardless, it's ultimately up to the (intelligent/informed) reader to determine whether news is BS or not. The news should be under the same microscope regardless of where it came from.
Exactly. I've frequently chosen less powerful characters/builds in games because they're more fun.
If tank-like direct combat guys are common/overpowered in a game, I'll tend to go with a stealthy character. Or if everyone in a shooter gravitates to one or two specific weapons, I'll often pick one that has some sort of use or meaning beyond being the easiest or most powerful. I find the game is much more satisfying like that, especially if you get to be good at it. It's just not very interesting for me to join a game, learn the same skill set as everyone else, and then join the mob of thousands of identical character builds.
Forgive me, but how is "I love Eve Online" insightful?
I have no problem with people saying it. I'm just confused by the mod...
I fully agree that we're a long way from traveling that far/fast, but fusion is likely a good bit closer than 100 years...
There are a number of groups making significant progress in Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion
My personal favorite is the Polywell, but there are a number of others. There are still issues of course, but with everything these groups are learning, I doubt it'll take 100 years.
Apple broke their compatibility and are arguably better off for it, BUT they have complete control over their hardware and a big chunk of their software. While it's a lot of work for them, they can realistically handle it in-house and have it nice and shiny by the time it leaves the building.
I think it's much harder for other companies/projects to make such a clean break. Don't get me wrong... I think it's necessary to do it once in a while to keep the code under control, but the install base (both users and hardware) and the uncontrolled nature of software for Windows and Linux makes it much, much more difficult.
The partial break Microsoft made with Vista was bad enough. If they had completely broken all the old software, it would have been disastrous for them. Gnome and KDE users are generally more knowledgeable and possibly a bit more tolerant to change than your typical Windows user, but there's still going to be a breaking point. I know that a lot of people gave up on KDE with 4.0 and many haven't gone back.
I guess what I'm saying in my ramblings is that both sides have merit. Personally, if there were some middle ground between Gnome and KDE, that's where I'd plant myself. I like that KDE is pushing the envelope, but I've never really liked using it.
Don't underestimate backwards compatibility. In a business environment, it's going to be one of the top things on the list. A business (especially a large one) can't simply switch because something else comes along. The cost to change and the (temporary) loss of productivity are too great.
I've got two monitors side by side, both at 1280x1024. I wouldn't call that tiny and, while some of my paths ARE pretty big, most of them are not huge.
You hit it on the head at the bottom, actually. I can't be bothered to resize the window every time. It's no better than the other two options unless I know I have to muck around in there for a while.
They've left the 'up' functionality in with a keyboard shortcut, what's so hard about letting us have a button?
My memory could be fuzzy, but backspace actually moves BACK, not up. If I didn't get to that point by clicking through the full directory structure, then no dice.
Why should I have to install or especially BUY something to get such basic functionality? I don't like having to make silly, unnecessary add-ons to my computer.
And before I get criticized for complaining about it on Slashdot, I only posted this originally because there was confusion about what actual problems people have with the breadcrumb system...
I agree that 2 gigs is better, but I've found Vista to be plenty usable with 1. Like I said, I don't extend that to gaming or graphics, but for standard email, word, etc...
I can't help that you don't believe me and, frankly, I don't care. Your experience isn't the only one in the world that matters...
I understand it fine. That doesn't make it good.
Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little). Alt-Up is fine and I like keyboard shortcuts, but that one is awkward to get to with my hand on my mouse and I don't see any strong reason why they can't have left the up button or given more space for the tree...
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
Again, don't get me wrong. There are things I like about Vista and you'll see me fighting for it more often than against it, but some things just seem to me like they needed more work.
Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...
I'm sure there are people who have problems, but that doesn't mean it necessarily affects everybody. Blanket statements are just silly.
For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier. They've cluttered it up so much with the 'favorites' stuff that it interferes with my ability to use the directory structure that I've set up over the years.
So you're saying that we should just stop making new software because what we have is good enough?
You don't have to upgrade, but in another 2 years, I think I'll want something other than Vista on my new computers...
There might be a couple of small exceptions, but everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.
Either 7 is exactly like Vista and they're stealing peoples' money or they're changing/improving things and breaking compatibility. Pick one.
Yes, I know there will be a reply to this that says it's Microsoft and they can do both, but let's cut the crap. They're trying and they're doing better now than they have in quite a while. Give them a tiny bit of credit just once...