Yes, that's an excellent point, but it's quite likely going to be a while before we see phones that have 4 gigs of memory that are affordable and can do the job as well as the iPod (smart playlists, itunes integration). By then the iPod will have already had its day, or will have evolved to something further while the cell phone keeps playing catch-up. It WILL be cool when we get all of this integration DONE RIGHT, but I can't see it happening for a little while yet.
'cuz some slashdotters look forward, rather than the present or past.
That makes no sense as a retort to what I wrote. I'll take a stab anyhow, though. I would assume most people who have enough competence to construct grammatically correct sentences online would understand the concept that in a consumerist world, not every product is intended to be marketed towards them, and when it quite clearly isn't ("HOLY SHIT BATTERY LIFE BLOWS APPLE SUCKS I CAN GET MORE FEATURES FROM PLAYER X PEOPLE JUST BUY IT CUZ IT LOOKS COOL"), they probably shouldn't try to rip apart a product that's not trying to be something that it, well, isn't. Looking forward is great. Being assinine about a product that's not designed for them isn't.
Combine more features and kiss that extra time goo-bye.
Common sense would tell us that if battery life would be an issue for the iPods market, not the whiney battery life dude, but the people the iPod is being marketed for, Apple would make sure that it would not be a major issue while using those "extra features" that don't exist yet. When it becomes a real issue for the real market, then you'll probably see it increased before it hits the market. And if it doesn't? It will slip.
Seek help.
Those who would try to discredit a very, very successful product for battery life that noone very obviously (see:sales) cares about makes me snicker. You want me to seek help? I'm sure I could seek up some help in the form of a link that displays the success of the iPod that you apparently believe should be a failure.
Seriously, you didn't expect the iPod to remain as _only_ a music playing device forever, did you?
Obviously no, but it hasn't yet, so I don't know why you're implying that it somehow has already changed from being just an effective mp3 player.
Phones aren't going to be a threat to it sales-wise until they get some form of comparable space. When do you see even ONE gig cell phones becoming mainstream and affordable?
You can have the cell phone with the 128 meg memory that does the barebones MP3 playback. It's no competition for the iPod and its capabilities, nor will it be until long after the iPod had its day.
Apparently, noone else gives a shit about the battery life as much as Slashdotters do. I've got one and have a bunch of friends who own them. Any battery issues seem to be transparent for all of us and indeed all other happy iPod owners I know because we rarely sit and listen to our iPods for FOUR HOURS STRAIGHT before recharging. (PS: Ya know you can recharge the iPod WHILE YOU SLEEP?)
I always laugh when this comes up... a longer battery would be nice, but some folks complain about it on here as if Apple should be ashamed that their middle-aged nerd travelling customers (the same ones who predicted the iPod would be a POS noone would buy) don't think the battery life is adequate.
The funny thing is they don't realize they're not the market, even given all of the obvious evidence. And this is what is funny and makes me roll my eyes at every "OMG BATTERY LIFE" post. Longer battery life would be nice, but it's not the ridiculous issue detractors make it out to be.
The difference is 20 gb and the ability to store a whole shitload of albums on a small device designed explicitly for ease of use and functionality in that regard.
You're not really in the market Apple is going after, and neither will these phones until they can hold the massive amounts of tunes that the iPod can with a comparable interface. I think it'll be a little while before we see 20 gb phones. In the meantime the iPod will continue to sell because it excels at one thing.
I remember reading a similar article about camera phones hurting real digital camera sales.
As I remeber, only the latest machines that were above the 'normal' systems would run Doom worth a darn.
Really? Most of my friends who had computers didn't have any problems... then again most of them had gotten new ones at the time... point taken!
I think it's a great thing that a good game can be run on a 'standard' machine, but it's been that way for a few years now.
It has, but the way I look at it and the way I suspect most devs look at it is that they're not holding back on graphics, per se (with obvious exceptions, consoles, etc), they're simply trying to support a much wider user base. You can see it in the graphics options for just about any modern 3D computer game... there are TONS. Doom had what, window size and high/low quality?
At any rate, I don't think that setting up engines so they can be scaled downwards to a computer half as powerful as something that can run with all the bells and whistles is a bad thing, it's good for the community as a whole. Being able to scale is added functionality, not stagnating progression as the parent implied.
Which may be the case, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about how long I've played COMPUTER GAMES when your logic is so obviously and fundamentally flawed. It's not necessary and proves nothing.
I'm here to tell you that advanced gaming is disappearing at the same rate as good music
No, you just need to know where to look. The mainstream is not it, old man.
The fact that you mention "Linkin Park" and not "Genesis" or "Rush" just shows your age in so many of its adolescent colors!
Oh, please. I thought it was very apparent I was using an exhaggerated simile. I didn't think I'd have to name two mainstream bands from back-in-the-day to get the basic idea across. Sorry you didn't catch it, I guess.
I don't want to limit id software's advanced games to 2%. I just wish they would limited it to less than 30 percent of the installed base of machines. That's a big difference. You've definitely got me all wrong here.
You're implying that a mainstream company's goal should be to limit its potential user base by making system requirements extremely high. My point is that mainstream developers sort of, ya know, want to sell to as many people as possible, and thus would put time and effort into making the game playable on lower level hardware. Businesses like money. id is a business. Where is the confusion?
And if the game id had showed us at Macworld had actually came out four years ago (or even two years ago), then I would have "shit in my pants".
You'd have to be able to play it first to do that though. Part of what is going to make Doom 3 so great is it's going to be played by a lot of people while still having bleeding edge graphics. You're looking for something else, but you're simply not going to find it from a mainstream developer. It's quite simple, really. I can understand your desire for absolute no holds barred bleeding edge, but you're speaking badly about a company that is obviously not about that and would prefer to get its product into as many hands as possible. Your dismay seems a bit misguided when you take common business sense into account.
"I doubt you were even around when Doom 1 came out. It's a real shame that you've even posted a reply to a long time gamer such as me. I've been around since the beginning."
You think you're a long time gamer because you were around when Doom 1 came out? That somehow invalidates the original posters points? Are you kidding?
No, "I" used to love id "so much" because they did things that "other" game companies wouldn't try. Making Doom III run on a console is tanamount to professional treason.
Two things. First of all, id is not directly doing the XBox port. Second of all, a company is not fucking treasonous if it wants to make its very much sought after game available where possible. This is good for gamers, not bad. "Treasonous" would be if a company alienated its fanbase by making the hardware requirements so ridiculous that NOONE could play it.
From all the graphics I've seen, Doom III certainly does not "push the limits" on modern hardware.
You either don't know what you're talking about despite your breathtaking amounts of experience, or you haven't seen the screenshots of the game running in high resolution ultra mode, in which case you're just ignorant. Perhaps you haven't seen the benchmarks which are showing that all of our modern hardware will only be able to run the game at around 1024*768, otherwise the framerate might be a bit sluggish.
In fact the game looks like a more adanced and rendered "Halo".
Since Halo looks pretty damn good in the first place, I don't see how this is a valid point. Doom 3 does look much more advanced, it's gorgeous. There's nothing wrong with that.
It looks like the character maps and 3D engine were created two years ago and nothing but story line and graphics were added since then.
So what you're implying is that there was a FPS game out two years ago that looked as good or better than Doom 3 or had an engine as advanced? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
And for your information, "rich kids" were all that could afford PCs in the early days. You should pay a penalty for getting the best, that's the way the world works.
So a good developer is going to cut off the vast, vast majority of its potential fanbase for the elitest dudes with the top 2% hardware? Color me crazy, but isn't being able to create a game with a top-of-the-line engine that can barely be played on the highest end hardware today at the highest settings, yet still be able to be played on systems half as good PROGRESS?
If everyone catered to the lowest common denominator we'd end up buying everything at the dollar store.
Once again, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Go check out the minimum specs on the game then take a look at how fast the average desktop computer is. I wouldn't be mad at id just because you don't understand the concept of having the largest target market possible. id is a business, making a very good business decision that their market wants.
I would like to see a game so advanced that only the few can play it.
Then perhaps you very obviously shouldn't be seeking this from a mainstream developer?
That's the way it worked for Doom 1
Uh no, most people could play Doom 1, and PC gaming wasn't exactly a huge market at the time anyhow, it was more of a niche market. The times have changed slightly, have you noticed?
drives the industry, that moves things forward. It gives people something to look forward to. If you don't have any forward vision, then why are you here?
Remember Macworld, four years ago, when you could practically smell every non-id developer shit their pants? What we saw was the vision that gave us something to look forward to and set a standard for what other developers needed to get at to keep graphically relevant.
This tripe sounds like the elitest music fan who's pissed off because Linkin Park were so much kewler when they were underground...
Microsoft security sucked because it left everything wide open. Now it doesn't suck as much because it has a lot of the nastiness closed by default.
The bottom line is that this is going to make Windows more secure than it was; MS is finally taking some decent steps towards locking down their systems. That is an improvement and yes, it is taking steps forward.
Second of all, you don't need "the world's best machine" to run Doom 3, but you're damn well going to want it if you want it to look as good as it can. Noone's forcing you to buy this game, noone's forcing you to upgrade your hardware, noone's forcing you to crank up the resolution and details which WILL need a good computer.
Third of all, if noone had pushed software to require better hardware, then you wouldn't have hardware improvements.
Fourth of all, this isn't a Blizzard engine we're talking about, this is an id engine. This sucker is going to be used to power games for YEARS, in which time your HPs and Compaqs will catch up with the higher end hardware and be able to run the engine well. Not making the Doom 3 engine cutting edge (requiring spiffy hardware if you want to run with all of the jazz on) would not allow you to keep an engine relevant graphics wise without heavy modification.
Do you really, honestly think that you could play Warcraft 3 on Warcraft 2 era hardware?
I have yet to hear any sort of sane reason as to why pushing the envelope of hardware is bad, especially when you're talking about a game, which like other games, can have details and resolutions lowered so you can play on a high number of systems out there.
None of those games will look as good as Doom 3. Noone's forcing you to upgrade, games like Doom 3 push graphics/hardware intensive technology to the next level.
Wifi is expensive, which is why people look for free spots.
The free spots are sprouting up all over the place, at least where I'm from. That said, it's not expensive.
If they were penny pinchers they wouldn't own an iPod.
300 bucks isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. Consider what you get: a 20GB harddrive that's just used to store music. How long do you think that is going to last your AVERAGE user? Quite a while, I would guess. Anyhow though, if you can't afford the 300 bucks, then it's simply not for you. Noone's stopping you from buying the alternatives.
iPods are very, very popular and they ARE sought out. There's a reason they have over half of the market share.
Even players that -- really -- blow the ipod out of the water, like the 40-60GB iRiver with its 16 hour battery life and bells and whistles (costing less)
You can have 'em. The iPod isn't about price and affordability, it's about being sleek, functional, and easy to use. iTunes makes the whole thing a snap for newbies. I looked at the other players back in January, but the elegant solution of the iPod sucked me in. I knew I wasn't going to use external memory, I wasn't going to record anything since I don't listen to the radio (why WOULD you listen to the radio if you have every CD in your collection on you?), battery life wasn't a big deal since I always charge my electronics at night... Anyhow, it's obviously a personal preference, but I got the iPod for ease of use, the power it gives you with the playlists and sorting via iTunes (rating songs, keeping count of how many times you've played a song, the list goes on). I'm also a very happy owner of a Powerbook and soon a G5, so the iPod was given a head start by default.
people buy the iPod because it 'looks cool'.
Yes, the iPod does look cool. Again, it's a sleek and elegant solution. It would be foolish to assume that 50% of the market would buy a product that merely "looks cool" but underperforms yet is also ridiculously expensive, yes? I'm not saying the iPod is the best portable media player, I'm just saying that it's successful for a reason, it is lusted after for a reason. The other players you mentioned are working to be something the iPod is not.
I love it so much, I'll never understand why people buy into a 'style' branding or something.
This is probably why you'll also never be hired by a company that knows how to get a steep profit margin while continuing to out-sell the competition while 99% of its customers are thrilled with its product.
However, I am glad that despite all the foaming at the mouth Applle people modding me down, the thread is still only modded down to a 4 now. Maybe you can email the link to your friends and get them in on the action; it'll be a 1 in no time!
Jesus, maybe you take the moderation a bit too much to heart. Hopefully you're not honestly insecure about your/. post scores when you get away from a computer. Make yourself a tea.
Get a high definition projection CRT. If you're buying a new TV, at this point you probably want to have the capability to do HD.
CRT projection isn't going to burn-in on you if you're even the least bit aware that it can happen.
Excellent image quality (I worked in a high-end consumer electronics store at one point, and given the choice between any TV set I would definitely go with a 5 lens CRT).
Cheap! You can purchase one of these bad boys for less than 1500 bucks.
Technology is tried and true.
Not as deep or heavy as you would think - a 46" weighs about 150 pounds and is easily less than 20" deep.
At any rate, I'd say it's the best bang for the buck. I'm THRILLED with my Toshiba 46" cinema series.
You do realize that ipods are about 300 bucks, right?
Uhm yes, I have one, but the parent poster was implying that wifi is quite expensive (as many would argue an iPod is), which the majority of folks wouldn't find ~40 dollars to be.
I agree with most everything you say about consoles, but think you're entirely off track in calling any Voodoo computer "ghetto-rigged." Anything they've built is designed & tested within an inch of it's life.
You're paying 2 grand for a piece of hardware that uses some trickery to get PC games to work like console games in terms of load times, etc. The PC games were not designed to do this, hence you're buying what I would call a "rigged" system. That's not to say it doesn't perform well. When I RTFA it said in there somewhere that the reviewer was shipped a unit that was designed to play this one game... didn't this set a red light off for you?
You pay over 2 grand to play computer games on a computer.
Not unless you actually know what you're doing while wanting the best bang for the buck. If you're very much into getting the absolute highest amount of FPS possible and money isn't a concern, maybe you'd have a point, but in this day and age it costs MAYBE a thousand bucks to piece together a very decent system. Hell, my sister just bought a $600 HP, we threw in a Radeon 9800 pro and Unreal Tournament 2004 runs like a champ at 1600*1200. There's no doubt in my mind she'll be able to run Doom 3 at a reasonable resolution.
If you want to buy a middling computer with a middling graphics card, go ahead. I don't think these will ever replace consoles, if for no other issue than durability
Of course they won't. Who said that PCs would replace consoles? They both have their crowds and they both things that they do very well that the other doesn't do quite as well. The line has been beginning to blur lately, but the fundamentals I brought up are still why I (personally) will still continue to buy both consoles and PCs and stay away from the jack-of-all-trades deals.
And if you don't think there are many PC games with what we like to call "multiplayer" funcionality, then maybe you need to buy some new games & upgrade your computer.
Before you try to be a smartass, it'd be advisable to go back and read the original post where it is clearly implied that I was talking about SPLIT-SCREEN. It's that thing that many console gamers get in their games when they want to, ya know, all play on one TV? Did you want me to pick up some glasses for you while I'm out buying my new games and upgrades?
Not to mention the fact that most people sit less than a couple of feet from their monitors while a TV is going to typically be a good 4 or 5, at least.
Typical console gamer knee-jerk reaction: I was referring to the control schemes. I am not an exclusive PC gamer, in fact I play more console games right now (waiting for D3 and HL2) than PC games.
The BOTTOM LINE is that you pay over 2 grand to play computer games on an essentially ghetto-rigged system. Why not just buy a middle-of-the-road computer with a nice video card for half that much? Is it an argument that people don't play computer games because they want to sit in their living rooms on a sofa?
I think consoles thrive on (comparatively) simple games that don't require too much futzing about. Simple controls, simple setup. Computer games tend to be much more control-hungry, with many games using an entire keyboard. I can't see myself sitting awkwardly with a keyboard on my lap while watching low-res TV (yes, HD, blah blah blah).
Besides, most guys I know love console games because you can sit down with your buddies and blow the piss out of each other on one TV. There aren't too many PC games with this functionality.
Yes, but by the same token one could say that for the average user, a Mac is TRIVIAL to set up, use, and maintain in comparison to both Windows and Linux, and thus the "smarter" person who doesn't view money as a factor would opt for the Mac, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's an excellent point, but it's quite likely going to be a while before we see phones that have 4 gigs of memory that are affordable and can do the job as well as the iPod (smart playlists, itunes integration). By then the iPod will have already had its day, or will have evolved to something further while the cell phone keeps playing catch-up. It WILL be cool when we get all of this integration DONE RIGHT, but I can't see it happening for a little while yet.
'cuz some slashdotters look forward, rather than the present or past.
That makes no sense as a retort to what I wrote. I'll take a stab anyhow, though. I would assume most people who have enough competence to construct grammatically correct sentences online would understand the concept that in a consumerist world, not every product is intended to be marketed towards them, and when it quite clearly isn't ("HOLY SHIT BATTERY LIFE BLOWS APPLE SUCKS I CAN GET MORE FEATURES FROM PLAYER X PEOPLE JUST BUY IT CUZ IT LOOKS COOL"), they probably shouldn't try to rip apart a product that's not trying to be something that it, well, isn't. Looking forward is great. Being assinine about a product that's not designed for them isn't.
Combine more features and kiss that extra time goo-bye.
Common sense would tell us that if battery life would be an issue for the iPods market, not the whiney battery life dude, but the people the iPod is being marketed for, Apple would make sure that it would not be a major issue while using those "extra features" that don't exist yet. When it becomes a real issue for the real market, then you'll probably see it increased before it hits the market. And if it doesn't? It will slip.
Seek help.
Those who would try to discredit a very, very successful product for battery life that noone very obviously (see:sales) cares about makes me snicker. You want me to seek help? I'm sure I could seek up some help in the form of a link that displays the success of the iPod that you apparently believe should be a failure.
Seriously, you didn't expect the iPod to remain as _only_ a music playing device forever, did you?
Obviously no, but it hasn't yet, so I don't know why you're implying that it somehow has already changed from being just an effective mp3 player.
Phones aren't going to be a threat to it sales-wise until they get some form of comparable space. When do you see even ONE gig cell phones becoming mainstream and affordable?
You can have the cell phone with the 128 meg memory that does the barebones MP3 playback. It's no competition for the iPod and its capabilities, nor will it be until long after the iPod had its day.
Apparently, noone else gives a shit about the battery life as much as Slashdotters do. I've got one and have a bunch of friends who own them. Any battery issues seem to be transparent for all of us and indeed all other happy iPod owners I know because we rarely sit and listen to our iPods for FOUR HOURS STRAIGHT before recharging. (PS: Ya know you can recharge the iPod WHILE YOU SLEEP?)
I always laugh when this comes up... a longer battery would be nice, but some folks complain about it on here as if Apple should be ashamed that their middle-aged nerd travelling customers (the same ones who predicted the iPod would be a POS noone would buy) don't think the battery life is adequate.
The funny thing is they don't realize they're not the market, even given all of the obvious evidence. And this is what is funny and makes me roll my eyes at every "OMG BATTERY LIFE" post. Longer battery life would be nice, but it's not the ridiculous issue detractors make it out to be.
The difference is 20 gb and the ability to store a whole shitload of albums on a small device designed explicitly for ease of use and functionality in that regard.
You're not really in the market Apple is going after, and neither will these phones until they can hold the massive amounts of tunes that the iPod can with a comparable interface. I think it'll be a little while before we see 20 gb phones. In the meantime the iPod will continue to sell because it excels at one thing.
I remember reading a similar article about camera phones hurting real digital camera sales.
As I remeber, only the latest machines that were above the 'normal' systems would run Doom worth a darn.
Really? Most of my friends who had computers didn't have any problems... then again most of them had gotten new ones at the time... point taken!
I think it's a great thing that a good game can be run on a 'standard' machine, but it's been that way for a few years now.
It has, but the way I look at it and the way I suspect most devs look at it is that they're not holding back on graphics, per se (with obvious exceptions, consoles, etc), they're simply trying to support a much wider user base. You can see it in the graphics options for just about any modern 3D computer game... there are TONS. Doom had what, window size and high/low quality?
At any rate, I don't think that setting up engines so they can be scaled downwards to a computer half as powerful as something that can run with all the bells and whistles is a bad thing, it's good for the community as a whole. Being able to scale is added functionality, not stagnating progression as the parent implied.
I'm well past my prime as a gamer.
That much is certain.
I've got seniority on your ass
Which may be the case, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about how long I've played COMPUTER GAMES when your logic is so obviously and fundamentally flawed. It's not necessary and proves nothing.
I'm here to tell you that advanced gaming is disappearing at the same rate as good music
No, you just need to know where to look. The mainstream is not it, old man.
The fact that you mention "Linkin Park" and not "Genesis" or "Rush" just shows your age in so many of its adolescent colors!
Oh, please. I thought it was very apparent I was using an exhaggerated simile. I didn't think I'd have to name two mainstream bands from back-in-the-day to get the basic idea across. Sorry you didn't catch it, I guess.
I don't want to limit id software's advanced games to 2%. I just wish they would limited it to less than 30 percent of the installed base of machines. That's a big difference. You've definitely got me all wrong here.
You're implying that a mainstream company's goal should be to limit its potential user base by making system requirements extremely high. My point is that mainstream developers sort of, ya know, want to sell to as many people as possible, and thus would put time and effort into making the game playable on lower level hardware. Businesses like money. id is a business. Where is the confusion?
And if the game id had showed us at Macworld had actually came out four years ago (or even two years ago), then I would have "shit in my pants".
You'd have to be able to play it first to do that though. Part of what is going to make Doom 3 so great is it's going to be played by a lot of people while still having bleeding edge graphics. You're looking for something else, but you're simply not going to find it from a mainstream developer. It's quite simple, really. I can understand your desire for absolute no holds barred bleeding edge, but you're speaking badly about a company that is obviously not about that and would prefer to get its product into as many hands as possible. Your dismay seems a bit misguided when you take common business sense into account.
"I doubt you were even around when Doom 1 came out. It's a real shame that you've even posted a reply to a long time gamer such as me. I've been around since the beginning."
You think you're a long time gamer because you were around when Doom 1 came out? That somehow invalidates the original posters points? Are you kidding?
No, "I" used to love id "so much" because they did things that "other" game companies wouldn't try. Making Doom III run on a console is tanamount to professional treason.
Two things. First of all, id is not directly doing the XBox port. Second of all, a company is not fucking treasonous if it wants to make its very much sought after game available where possible. This is good for gamers, not bad. "Treasonous" would be if a company alienated its fanbase by making the hardware requirements so ridiculous that NOONE could play it.
From all the graphics I've seen, Doom III certainly does not "push the limits" on modern hardware.
You either don't know what you're talking about despite your breathtaking amounts of experience, or you haven't seen the screenshots of the game running in high resolution ultra mode, in which case you're just ignorant. Perhaps you haven't seen the benchmarks which are showing that all of our modern hardware will only be able to run the game at around 1024*768, otherwise the framerate might be a bit sluggish.
In fact the game looks like a more adanced and rendered "Halo".
Since Halo looks pretty damn good in the first place, I don't see how this is a valid point. Doom 3 does look much more advanced, it's gorgeous. There's nothing wrong with that.
It looks like the character maps and 3D engine were created two years ago and nothing but story line and graphics were added since then.
So what you're implying is that there was a FPS game out two years ago that looked as good or better than Doom 3 or had an engine as advanced? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
And for your information, "rich kids" were all that could afford PCs in the early days. You should pay a penalty for getting the best, that's the way the world works.
So a good developer is going to cut off the vast, vast majority of its potential fanbase for the elitest dudes with the top 2% hardware? Color me crazy, but isn't being able to create a game with a top-of-the-line engine that can barely be played on the highest end hardware today at the highest settings, yet still be able to be played on systems half as good PROGRESS?
If everyone catered to the lowest common denominator we'd end up buying everything at the dollar store.
Once again, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Go check out the minimum specs on the game then take a look at how fast the average desktop computer is. I wouldn't be mad at id just because you don't understand the concept of having the largest target market possible. id is a business, making a very good business decision that their market wants.
I would like to see a game so advanced that only the few can play it.
Then perhaps you very obviously shouldn't be seeking this from a mainstream developer?
That's the way it worked for Doom 1
Uh no, most people could play Doom 1, and PC gaming wasn't exactly a huge market at the time anyhow, it was more of a niche market. The times have changed slightly, have you noticed?
drives the industry, that moves things forward. It gives people something to look forward to. If you don't have any forward vision, then why are you here?
Remember Macworld, four years ago, when you could practically smell every non-id developer shit their pants? What we saw was the vision that gave us something to look forward to and set a standard for what other developers needed to get at to keep graphically relevant.
This tripe sounds like the elitest music fan who's pissed off because Linkin Park were so much kewler when they were underground...
Uh, the parent poster was obviously joking.
Get a fucking clue.
Irony.... sigh.
Explorer crashes on me maybe once a month, and it only happens if I'm doing something weird. I concur with everyone else, though... it's not the OS.
Microsoft security sucked because it left everything wide open. Now it doesn't suck as much because it has a lot of the nastiness closed by default.
The bottom line is that this is going to make Windows more secure than it was; MS is finally taking some decent steps towards locking down their systems. That is an improvement and yes, it is taking steps forward.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
This is absurdly obvious.
First of all, lots of people still pay Quake 2.
Second of all, you don't need "the world's best machine" to run Doom 3, but you're damn well going to want it if you want it to look as good as it can. Noone's forcing you to buy this game, noone's forcing you to upgrade your hardware, noone's forcing you to crank up the resolution and details which WILL need a good computer.
Third of all, if noone had pushed software to require better hardware, then you wouldn't have hardware improvements.
Fourth of all, this isn't a Blizzard engine we're talking about, this is an id engine. This sucker is going to be used to power games for YEARS, in which time your HPs and Compaqs will catch up with the higher end hardware and be able to run the engine well. Not making the Doom 3 engine cutting edge (requiring spiffy hardware if you want to run with all of the jazz on) would not allow you to keep an engine relevant graphics wise without heavy modification.
Do you really, honestly think that you could play Warcraft 3 on Warcraft 2 era hardware?
I have yet to hear any sort of sane reason as to why pushing the envelope of hardware is bad, especially when you're talking about a game, which like other games, can have details and resolutions lowered so you can play on a high number of systems out there.
Yes sir, this is all excellent advice!
None of those games will look as good as Doom 3. Noone's forcing you to upgrade, games like Doom 3 push graphics/hardware intensive technology to the next level.
Wifi is expensive, which is why people look for free spots.
/. post scores when you get away from a computer. Make yourself a tea.
The free spots are sprouting up all over the place, at least where I'm from. That said, it's not expensive.
If they were penny pinchers they wouldn't own an iPod.
300 bucks isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. Consider what you get: a 20GB harddrive that's just used to store music. How long do you think that is going to last your AVERAGE user? Quite a while, I would guess. Anyhow though, if you can't afford the 300 bucks, then it's simply not for you. Noone's stopping you from buying the alternatives.
iPods are very, very popular and they ARE sought out. There's a reason they have over half of the market share.
Even players that -- really -- blow the ipod out of the water, like the 40-60GB iRiver with its 16 hour battery life and bells and whistles (costing less)
You can have 'em. The iPod isn't about price and affordability, it's about being sleek, functional, and easy to use. iTunes makes the whole thing a snap for newbies. I looked at the other players back in January, but the elegant solution of the iPod sucked me in. I knew I wasn't going to use external memory, I wasn't going to record anything since I don't listen to the radio (why WOULD you listen to the radio if you have every CD in your collection on you?), battery life wasn't a big deal since I always charge my electronics at night... Anyhow, it's obviously a personal preference, but I got the iPod for ease of use, the power it gives you with the playlists and sorting via iTunes (rating songs, keeping count of how many times you've played a song, the list goes on). I'm also a very happy owner of a Powerbook and soon a G5, so the iPod was given a head start by default.
people buy the iPod because it 'looks cool'.
Yes, the iPod does look cool. Again, it's a sleek and elegant solution. It would be foolish to assume that 50% of the market would buy a product that merely "looks cool" but underperforms yet is also ridiculously expensive, yes? I'm not saying the iPod is the best portable media player, I'm just saying that it's successful for a reason, it is lusted after for a reason. The other players you mentioned are working to be something the iPod is not.
I love it so much, I'll never understand why people buy into a 'style' branding or something.
This is probably why you'll also never be hired by a company that knows how to get a steep profit margin while continuing to out-sell the competition while 99% of its customers are thrilled with its product.
However, I am glad that despite all the foaming at the mouth Applle people modding me down, the thread is still only modded down to a 4 now. Maybe you can email the link to your friends and get them in on the action; it'll be a 1 in no time!
Jesus, maybe you take the moderation a bit too much to heart. Hopefully you're not honestly insecure about your
Get a high definition projection CRT. If you're buying a new TV, at this point you probably want to have the capability to do HD.
CRT projection isn't going to burn-in on you if you're even the least bit aware that it can happen.
Excellent image quality (I worked in a high-end consumer electronics store at one point, and given the choice between any TV set I would definitely go with a 5 lens CRT).
Cheap! You can purchase one of these bad boys for less than 1500 bucks.
Technology is tried and true.
Not as deep or heavy as you would think - a 46" weighs about 150 pounds and is easily less than 20" deep.
At any rate, I'd say it's the best bang for the buck. I'm THRILLED with my Toshiba 46" cinema series.
Sigh. That's very, very true. I'm afraid to see what an Airport Extreme card runs for... (although they are G, which is nice).
You do realize that ipods are about 300 bucks, right?
Uhm yes, I have one, but the parent poster was implying that wifi is quite expensive (as many would argue an iPod is), which the majority of folks wouldn't find ~40 dollars to be.
Get it now?
You do realize that wireless cards are only about 40 bucks, right? Not exactly lavish.
I agree with most everything you say about consoles, but think you're entirely off track in calling any Voodoo computer "ghetto-rigged." Anything they've built is designed & tested within an inch of it's life.
You're paying 2 grand for a piece of hardware that uses some trickery to get PC games to work like console games in terms of load times, etc. The PC games were not designed to do this, hence you're buying what I would call a "rigged" system. That's not to say it doesn't perform well. When I RTFA it said in there somewhere that the reviewer was shipped a unit that was designed to play this one game... didn't this set a red light off for you?
You pay over 2 grand to play computer games on a computer.
Not unless you actually know what you're doing while wanting the best bang for the buck. If you're very much into getting the absolute highest amount of FPS possible and money isn't a concern, maybe you'd have a point, but in this day and age it costs MAYBE a thousand bucks to piece together a very decent system. Hell, my sister just bought a $600 HP, we threw in a Radeon 9800 pro and Unreal Tournament 2004 runs like a champ at 1600*1200. There's no doubt in my mind she'll be able to run Doom 3 at a reasonable resolution.
If you want to buy a middling computer with a middling graphics card, go ahead. I don't think these will ever replace consoles, if for no other issue than durability
Of course they won't. Who said that PCs would replace consoles? They both have their crowds and they both things that they do very well that the other doesn't do quite as well. The line has been beginning to blur lately, but the fundamentals I brought up are still why I (personally) will still continue to buy both consoles and PCs and stay away from the jack-of-all-trades deals.
And if you don't think there are many PC games with what we like to call "multiplayer" funcionality, then maybe you need to buy some new games & upgrade your computer.
Before you try to be a smartass, it'd be advisable to go back and read the original post where it is clearly implied that I was talking about SPLIT-SCREEN. It's that thing that many console gamers get in their games when they want to, ya know, all play on one TV? Did you want me to pick up some glasses for you while I'm out buying my new games and upgrades?
Not to mention the fact that most people sit less than a couple of feet from their monitors while a TV is going to typically be a good 4 or 5, at least.
Typical console gamer knee-jerk reaction: I was referring to the control schemes. I am not an exclusive PC gamer, in fact I play more console games right now (waiting for D3 and HL2) than PC games.
The BOTTOM LINE is that you pay over 2 grand to play computer games on an essentially ghetto-rigged system. Why not just buy a middle-of-the-road computer with a nice video card for half that much? Is it an argument that people don't play computer games because they want to sit in their living rooms on a sofa?
I think consoles thrive on (comparatively) simple games that don't require too much futzing about. Simple controls, simple setup. Computer games tend to be much more control-hungry, with many games using an entire keyboard. I can't see myself sitting awkwardly with a keyboard on my lap while watching low-res TV (yes, HD, blah blah blah).
Besides, most guys I know love console games because you can sit down with your buddies and blow the piss out of each other on one TV. There aren't too many PC games with this functionality.
Yes, but by the same token one could say that for the average user, a Mac is TRIVIAL to set up, use, and maintain in comparison to both Windows and Linux, and thus the "smarter" person who doesn't view money as a factor would opt for the Mac, yes?
Good God, you're not quoting Billy Fuccillo by any chance, are you?