But, the one thing Microsoft has over PS3 is the online infrastructure.
Maybe I am missing something, but is the really big advantage? Sure it might be marginally easier to hook up the net, maybe it's nice to be able to chat to friends, it might be nice to download trailers (even though you usually can do that with the PC as well) - but at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference in the gaming experience even with some "nice to have" features, IMO.
Actually because Microsoft wants to charge extra for it, it doesn't seem really that attractive to me. On the PC most online-multiplay is free and AFAIK on the PS2, too.
I've read somewhere (so that's a unconfirmed number, but I think it's realistic) that less than 1/4 of XBox1 owners used XBox-live. Also AFAIK more PS2 owners used online-play than XBox owners, even though the PS2 wasn't marketed that way.
Im pretty sure MS will do much better this time around than last time.
I'm not so sure about that.
XBox1 was at least better on paper (read: specifications, ignoring the gaming library) than PS2.
But PS3 can use 2 screens, XBox360 only one. PS3 will use BluRay, XBox360 only DVD. PS3 supports 7 controllers, XBox360 only 4.
While I sure can understand that some people are buying the XBox360 before the release of the PS3, I frankly don't expect a lot of XBox360 sales once the PS3 is available.
So if we compare last generation in which XBox1 had some selling points (faster CPU, harddrive, XBox Life) with this generation (XBox Life but slower CPU, fewer screens, fewer controllers, no BluRay) I just don't see why XBox360 should do better than XBox1.
I agree. At least as much losses. But that's probably calculated. The original xbox made sure that game development for windows AND a console was a breeze. During the last generation of consoles, DirectX/Direct3D became the platform of choice for most game deveolpers.
Keeping windows/directx as the premiere gaming platform is crucial to Microsoft. So if they only break even or even lose on the X360-project then so be it. I'll have to buy Vista to play games on my pc in 2007, and the reason for that is pretty much the X360.
I think that's overrated, game developers can (and do) switch between OpenGL and DirectX all the time without too much trouble. The big costs are caused by creating content (textures, sounds, scenery, levels, etc.) not implementation of the engine.
Also I think Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot when they push the XBox360 and weaken their highly profitable Windows for gaming product line.
Sony understands consoles, Microsoft doesn't.
on
The Next-Gen Odd Couple
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The paragraph that makes it obvious that Sony understands the console market is:
When we launch a PS3 online service, we certainly want to take advantage of the PS3, the technology it brings, and offer a great online experience for PS3 users, but at the same time, we want to make sure we bring along the huge install base of PS2 users and the install base of PSP users and have them be able to take part in the online experience as well.
Sony understands that they make the money in the games, not the hardware. If many of the 100 million PS2 owners don't need "next generation", fine for Sony - and fine for the game developers, they will continue to make and sell PS2 games for several years.
Microsoft on the other hand, sells the XBox like they sell MS Office: In very short periods, they try to upgrade as many users as possible to the "newest" version.
That's just wrong: First, many console users don't want to upgrade so often. 4 years for the XBox is pretty short. And if you bought your XBox last year because of Halo2, will you upgrade just after one year?
Second, the more hardware Microsoft sells, the more losses they make. So IF they ever want to break even (or - gasp - even make a profit), they somehow have to pay for the hardware losses by higher game-prices or tricking more people into paying monthly fees.
But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft.
360 is sold out in the US and EU with even pre-orders not being fullfilled. Where as it seems you can just go to a shop in japan and pick it up.
I live in the EU and I could pick up XBox360s in several stores right away. Especially the core system doesn't seem to sell at all, but I could also easily get a premium version.
And that even though Microsoft said they had only 300.000 XBox360 for whole Europe for christmas 2005.
Actually Sony sold 100 Million PS2s in 5 years, 37.14 millions of those in Europe (according to Sony). If we assume that they still sell 5 million/year in Europe, it's quite realistic to estimate about 1 to 2 millions for each christmas-season in Europe.
Microsoft only made a fraction of that for Europe (maybe they expected it to go slowly?) and they still didn't sell all.
GNOME is made by people who try to be like Apple, however that doesn't work because:
Apple has a damn fine marketing department. Even such horrible usability blunders like the puck-mouse were sold as great usability - and some people bought it. Hell some people even think that Apple is always right about usabiltiy (and the Gnome-guys seem to be like that)
Apple is actually creative and quite often they do have something first. Gnome only copies from KDE and Apple or they do something with greatly reduced functionality (like their small file selector) to be "unique".
Those people who like dumbed down interfaces may run a Mac but are pretty unlikely to run Linux in the first place.
My girlfriend (with absolutely no computer knowledge whatsoever) can use KDE just fine, I really don't know what GNOME is trying to accomplish.
(now camrips and ts's are loss of quality, a clean cablerip is as good as it can be on your tv).
Actually when done professionally, a camrip off your TFT-TV can be just as good as transferring it by cable. When using a good test-pattern, you can get 1:1 pixel alignment. A good engineer might also be able to rip off the electronics of a digital TV.
I'm pretty sure professional pirates (in Asia) are willing to do this, so whatever DRM the industry may try won't change a thing.
Nobody has ever in my opinion come up with a satisfactory reason for the failure of the x-box.
The XBox failed because it didn't offer anything really new. (Just like Gamecube)
PS2 sold well because it doubled as a DVD-player (and at release time few people already had a DVD-player) and of course because of the huge game library.
TV is - for most people and for most uses - already "good enough". A talk-show or a soap opera doesn't get better when seen in HD.
I'd say HD matters only in a small segment of the content, mostly movies - science fiction, fantasy and history. If you happen to not like those, you probably don't benefit from HD a lot.
When you do that, you have immedieately have protestors all around you that say how racist/biased/whatever your testing methods are, because we all know that we are all equal and any difference must be the fault of the testing methods.
Never did I say that there should be "not-improved console", what I did say is that computing power isn't the priority anymore. Even at a lower clockrate the new generation consoles would be several times faster than the older generation.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough about cooling: If you don't push everything to the absolute limit, you have plenty of room to maneuver. For example if you under normal circumstances run 10 or 20 C below maximum temperature, you could also warn the user/shut down gracefully/switch to safe-mode very early, a long time before it actually overheats.
Because heat rises electrical resistance, a machine running at 80% would use much LESS than 80% of the power. In the PC-world, where many people look at MHz-numbers, squeezing out the last possible bit of clockspeed makes some sense, but in the console-world, I would consider longer lifetime, more robust and stable operation and less recalls more important than a few percent more power. Especially from the hardware manufacturer's point of view
Interesting, you assert that MS could reduce the power consumption by smartening up the design. Could you perhaps explain how it is that you arrived at this conclusion? Could you please describe the research you did to determine the MS design is suboptimal and perhaps the steps you'd take to improve it?
Let's just say that I consider the PS2's design (~ 50 Watts) a lot smarter than XBox1's (~ 110 Watts). And just like XBox1, XBox360 is (again) using a brute-force approach.
If a smarter design isn't possible or not economical, then just reduce the clockrate.
As to reducing the polygon count, I don't happen to agree that is a viable option. It is an option, but MS needs to beat PS3 in the marketplace, and surely they don't feel that having a lower-performing console will do that for them.
As far as can be currently seen, the PS3 will have more output connectors (2 screens instead of 1), more controllers (7 instead of 4), more media capacity (40GB instead of 9GB) and full backwards compatibility (instead of "some" games)
The polygon count is the least of Microsoft's problems, also since PS3 is launching later they will probably beat them in polygon-count anyway.
However, there are technical issues to detecting overheating. Basically, you need a temperature sensor in the place that the overheating happens. You cannot just have temperature sensors in every chip, it would mean having custom versions of every chip in the unit, which wouldn't be cost effective, for example you couldn't even use commodity RAM.
That's absolutely no problem if you design it with some reserves in mind. If you know that at around 80 sensor temperature the thing starts crashing, make sure it doesn't reach 70.
Of course Microsoft seemed to have pushed everything to the limit in the XBox360 and that causes lots of (IMO unnecessary) problems.
Well, I have to say I have no way to be sure that PS3 will use as much power. But I would bet significant amounts of money on it. By "as much", I mean within 25%, for a rated of 160W, 120W typical. This would also be too hot to run in a typical unvented stereo enclosure. With an NVidia graphics chip in there, plus the Power PC, plus 8 coprocessors it's not going to be a cool device either. I mean, check the power usage ratings on current NVidia graphics chips, they can easily take 80W on their own, and an optical drive can take 5-10W more easy (depending on whether it is a laptop-type drive or regular one like 360 uses). That leaves 30-35W for the RAM, CPU and cooling system power draw. But we'll just have to finish this discussion when PS3 comes out.
I consider the PS2 (moderate power usage, INTERNAL power supply) a pretty good design, of course that doesn't guarantee that the PS3 will be, too. If the PS3 will be crap, that doesn't make the XBox360 any better.
Anyway: Yes, an NVidia-chip can suck down 80W on its own, however only if run at full speed. Again, if we look at PS2, which AFAIk runs at somewhere around 200 MHz, which was roughly 1/2 to 1/3 of what PC-CPUs were running at that time (see for example here), then it's quite possible that Sony is smart and clocks the PS3 at some speed that doesn't push every part to the limit, hopefully they also keep the internal power supply.
I mean, let's be realistic here: The PS2 and XBox1 are already "fast enough" for most games and there is absolutely no pressing need for more power. Don't get me wrong, of course the new generation has to beat the old one by a longshot, but there is absolutely no need anymore to push it so far that overheating becomes an issue.
But of course we will see. But if PS2 gives any hints about what PS3 will be (and since PS2 was the most successful console ever, they will keep what was successfull if they are smart) then the PS3 will not use a brute-force approach.
Microsoft seems to have not noticed yet, but the console-business lifes off the GAMES and not the h
I say again, are you sure you aren't asking MS to violate the laws of thermodynamics? Are you sure you even understand them?
This is exactly the kind of fanboyism that encourages companies to put out crappy products.
Nobody is asking MS to violate the laws of thermodynamics, however:
It's possible to reduce power consumption by using a smart design or even (gasp!) setting the clock a little bit lower. Sure instead of 5.83 gazillion polygons it would only render 4.21 gazillion, but the product would be a lot more robust and stable.
It should not crash when overheating, ideally a screen would appear that sais "overheated, wait a few moments" while the machine is in idle-mode to cool down. Shutting off the GPU (which would result in a black screen, but not in a crash) would also be a solution, even if it weren't so elegant. Then the users would automatically put it somewhere where it doesn't heat up that much.
It's not sure that PS3 will use as much power. The PS2 uses less than half than that of XBox1, so it's possible that they can pull of the same again.
Is it just me or do all media players really seem to suck ass these days?
Actually mplayer is great, you can run it with GUI (which I personally don't need because the keyboard and mouse navigation works great without it) or without. It's fast, it's simple, it's customizable and it does what it should do.
I'm not saying that I agree with the RIAA on this issue, but the burden of proof in civil court is "preponderance of the evidence," and has nothing to do with
being a parent being a parent of a given sex having kids having a certain number of kids
I'm usually not one of the "think of the children"-types, but yes, it has something to do with all this.
The whole reason we have laws is to protect people from each other, to keep up order and to benefit society.
Now where is the gain for society when this mother of 5 goes to jail on the taxpayer's expense?
I mean, hey, she's not some threat to society, would you be afraid of her if you would meet her alone in the park in the dark?
The whole thing is just ridiculous. If keeping up the whole copyright-thing means that thousands of lifes are destroyed just because of a handful of songs, then it's time to abolish or reform copyright because it harms society more than it benefits.
5. What's the real benefit? Yeah, Microsoft is evil, vendor lock-in, security vulnerabilities blah blah blah and so on. But honestly, does Linux provide a real business value? Does it save money in the long run? Does it make the work easier to do? Don't answer these questions as techno-geeks who are already biased, look at it from a semi-objective standpoint.
Microsoft can and sometime does change prices at any time they wish. (Their last licensing change wasn't that long ago)
Microsoft constantly changes formats, APIs, protocols, etc. to force people into upgrading to their latest-greatest software. (Examples: Office 12 doesn't use the Office XML 2003 and introduces yet another format, Avalon is yet another API, etc.) This not only causes costs in licensing, but also in hardware, support and possibly downtime.
Linux is much more stable. Many people say that "all software has bugs" which just isn't true. The smaller and the older software is, the less bugs it has. For example I would be really surprised if anybody would still find bugs in such real old programs like grep. KDE is of course still quite young in comparison, but it is already quite stable and will be even more in the future. In the Microsoft-world, however, everything is overturned with each version (see above), often needlessly. Do you really think a new file format will reduce the number of bugs in Office?
Linux plays fine with others.
Linux runs on everything, be it x86, AMD64, PPC, Arm or almost any other CPU.
Sure all this isn't something that you will feel overnight. You won't save any money in the week after you migrate. But you will save money, when Microsoft releases Windows Vista and again a few years later when they release the next version. You will save money because you don't get constantly new bugs and security holes (Maybe Microsoft made the Win32 API quite save by now, but wait for Avalon...)
So yes, it does make sense, but only if you take a long-term view.
Microsoft has a commercial interest in Internet Explorer
Actually, Microsoft has a lot of commercial interest in the Win32-platform (Windows-licenses, MSDN-subscriptions, courses, etc.) which is of course endangered by the Web.
That is why they wanted to establish their own network (MSN) with their own proprietary protocols and their own proprietary formats. They failed miserably and now MSN is just a normal ISP and uses Unix protocols and formats like anybody else. Microsoft did not "win" the Browser war, the whole Internet Explorer thing was damage control. After Netscape was dead, Microsoft was stuck with something they didn't really want. (An IE that was dominating but was running with open protocols and formats.) The better IE is, the more attractive the web becomes in comparison to Win32. So of course they let it rot, making IE better would have been counterproductive.
After Firefox started to destroy domination by becoming so big that it can no longer be ignored (over 10% and rising is too much to ignore, even if it's still a minority) therefore Microsoft fell back to damage control mode.
However, there are several reasons why IE will NEVER regain total domination:
IE is de-facto dead (or dying) on the Mac
While the IE to Firefox transition is quite easy (bookmarks get copied, etc.) the reverse is actually quite troublesome as Microsoft is quite arrogant and probably won't import FF bookmarks. Also of course FF-extensions don't run on IE, therefore IE7 might be able to slow further losses to FF, but it most likely won't be able to get back many users already lost.
Smartphones and other wireless devices are slowly getting more important and most of them don't run IE and never will. Even those few windows mobile users will run some browser that might be called IE but will not have much in common with the PC-version.
Embedded devices will become more important in browsing, especially the PS3.
Also, Linux adoption on the desktop is progressing. Many governments all around the world are adopting Linux, especially in South America and Europe.
IE has already lost domination and IE-only websites are becoming rarer already. Just one or 2 years ago, many people tried out Mozilla or Firefox, but were put off with IE-only websites. Quite a lot of those will try 1.5 and later 2.0 and even though the product is pretty much the same, there are much fewer IE-only sites around and therefore they are much more likely to stay with FF. Also, once a webmaster has established a standard-compliant website, it's unlikely that he reprograms it to be IE-only again, that just doesn't make any sense.
All these factors combined will prevent IE from regaining significant marketshare and will cause further decline for IE in the long term that might be slowed but not stopped by Microsoft.
Of course it does not draw max current continuesly.
But it does draw some watts - only exact measurements could tell how much exactly, probably somewhere between 5 and 50 Watts - anyway since the maker doesn't have to pay the energy bill and consumers are in general unaware about it, there is no reason to be economical when in standby mode.
With around 2$ per Watt per year, all those power supplies that constantly suck juice day and night for devices in standby (Everything today: Computer, monitor, TV, CVR, game console, cellphone recharger, supply for USB-harddrive, etc. etc.) all add up and may cost a few hundred dollars per year.
Oh yeah, and devices in standby are the number one reason for fires in residential areas today.
Do not place the [] power supply on a bed, sofa, or other soft surface
If the thing is so fragile that you can't even put the power supply on a bed(!), guess what will happen in a few months when dust (= good insulator) collects on all those power supplies.
Also, external power supplies are crap anyway. They constantly suck power even when the device is off. - That's why they are always warm.
At least the PS2 has a real power switch (you know the mechanical kind) and an internal power supply, I hope they keep it that way with the PS3.
Ewww, that's just another "folk science" website. It essentially puts together some numbers and lulls people into judging them with their gut and not with their brain.
Or to put it in another way: It's irrelevant wether your gut thinks that man-made amounts of CO2 are too small to affect the climate. That's now the way you do science. In science you use the brain and not the gut. Fact is that during thousands of years rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature. Fact is that in the last decades rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature.
Fact is also that man puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing the vegetation that absorbs CO2.
You say: "I offered more and more opposing evidence" but you don't post any. All the anti-global-warming websites are just like anti-evolution websites: They attack some details, come up with outdated or just plain wrong numbers and most importantly they don't offer any explanation at all.
Essentially the anti-global-warming position is that it's just a coincidence that we have the highest CO2-concentration and highest temperatures in hundreds of thousands of years. Which is no explanation at all. To say that some cycle that "we don't understand" is responsible is just like saying that God did it (like the anti-evolutionists) or that it's just a coincidence that the highest temperatures fall in the period of the industrial revolution. The anti-global-warming people provide exactly zero evidence for their "cycle"-theory, their whole theory is based on belief, not fact - and wishful thinking (that we don't have to change anything) of course.
On top of all that the most stupid point of all is: The "We don't understand it perfectly, so let's just do what we want" - argument. Sane people would say that you have to be extra-careful if you don't understand what concequences your actions have.
Only a complete moron thinks that lack of understanding is a reason to mess even more with things.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I am missing something, but is the really big advantage? Sure it might be marginally easier to hook up the net, maybe it's nice to be able to chat to friends, it might be nice to download trailers (even though you usually can do that with the PC as well) - but at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference in the gaming experience even with some "nice to have" features, IMO.
Actually because Microsoft wants to charge extra for it, it doesn't seem really that attractive to me. On the PC most online-multiplay is free and AFAIK on the PS2, too.
I've read somewhere (so that's a unconfirmed number, but I think it's realistic) that less than 1/4 of XBox1 owners used XBox-live. Also AFAIK more PS2 owners used online-play than XBox owners, even though the PS2 wasn't marketed that way.
Im pretty sure MS will do much better this time around than last time.
I'm not so sure about that.
XBox1 was at least better on paper (read: specifications, ignoring the gaming library) than PS2.
But PS3 can use 2 screens, XBox360 only one. PS3 will use BluRay, XBox360 only DVD. PS3 supports 7 controllers, XBox360 only 4.
While I sure can understand that some people are buying the XBox360 before the release of the PS3, I frankly don't expect a lot of XBox360 sales once the PS3 is available.
So if we compare last generation in which XBox1 had some selling points (faster CPU, harddrive, XBox Life) with this generation (XBox Life but slower CPU, fewer screens, fewer controllers, no BluRay) I just don't see why XBox360 should do better than XBox1.
I think that's overrated, game developers can (and do) switch between OpenGL and DirectX all the time without too much trouble. The big costs are caused by creating content (textures, sounds, scenery, levels, etc.) not implementation of the engine.
Also I think Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot when they push the XBox360 and weaken their highly profitable Windows for gaming product line.
When we launch a PS3 online service, we certainly want to take advantage of the PS3, the technology it brings, and offer a great online experience for PS3 users, but at the same time, we want to make sure we bring along the huge install base of PS2 users and the install base of PSP users and have them be able to take part in the online experience as well.
Sony understands that they make the money in the games, not the hardware. If many of the 100 million PS2 owners don't need "next generation", fine for Sony - and fine for the game developers, they will continue to make and sell PS2 games for several years.
Microsoft on the other hand, sells the XBox like they sell MS Office: In very short periods, they try to upgrade as many users as possible to the "newest" version.
That's just wrong: First, many console users don't want to upgrade so often. 4 years for the XBox is pretty short. And if you bought your XBox last year because of Halo2, will you upgrade just after one year?
Second, the more hardware Microsoft sells, the more losses they make. So IF they ever want to break even (or - gasp - even make a profit), they somehow have to pay for the hardware losses by higher game-prices or tricking more people into paying monthly fees.
But in the end, I think XBox360 will make as much losses as XBox1. I seriously doubt that XBox360 will ever make money for Microsoft.
Just refuse and go away if they stop you and try again until you get through.
I live in the EU and I could pick up XBox360s in several stores right away. Especially the core system doesn't seem to sell at all, but I could also easily get a premium version.
And that even though Microsoft said they had only 300.000 XBox360 for whole Europe for christmas 2005.
Actually Sony sold 100 Million PS2s in 5 years, 37.14 millions of those in Europe (according to Sony). If we assume that they still sell 5 million/year in Europe, it's quite realistic to estimate about 1 to 2 millions for each christmas-season in Europe.
Microsoft only made a fraction of that for Europe (maybe they expected it to go slowly?) and they still didn't sell all.
My girlfriend (with absolutely no computer knowledge whatsoever) can use KDE just fine, I really don't know what GNOME is trying to accomplish.
Actually when done professionally, a camrip off your TFT-TV can be just as good as transferring it by cable. When using a good test-pattern, you can get 1:1 pixel alignment. A good engineer might also be able to rip off the electronics of a digital TV.
I'm pretty sure professional pirates (in Asia) are willing to do this, so whatever DRM the industry may try won't change a thing.
The XBox failed because it didn't offer anything really new. (Just like Gamecube)
PS2 sold well because it doubled as a DVD-player (and at release time few people already had a DVD-player) and of course because of the huge game library.
How can Betamax be superior when it cannot hold a full-length movie?
I'd say HD matters only in a small segment of the content, mostly movies - science fiction, fantasy and history. If you happen to not like those, you probably don't benefit from HD a lot.
Is that the royal "we"?
When you do that, you have immedieately have protestors all around you that say how racist/biased/whatever your testing methods are, because we all know that we are all equal and any difference must be the fault of the testing methods.
Let's just say that I consider the PS2's design (~ 50 Watts) a lot smarter than XBox1's (~ 110 Watts). And just like XBox1, XBox360 is (again) using a brute-force approach.
If a smarter design isn't possible or not economical, then just reduce the clockrate.
As to reducing the polygon count, I don't happen to agree that is a viable option. It is an option, but MS needs to beat PS3 in the marketplace, and surely they don't feel that having a lower-performing console will do that for them.
As far as can be currently seen, the PS3 will have more output connectors (2 screens instead of 1), more controllers (7 instead of 4), more media capacity (40GB instead of 9GB) and full backwards compatibility (instead of "some" games)
The polygon count is the least of Microsoft's problems, also since PS3 is launching later they will probably beat them in polygon-count anyway.
However, there are technical issues to detecting overheating. Basically, you need a temperature sensor in the place that the overheating happens. You cannot just have temperature sensors in every chip, it would mean having custom versions of every chip in the unit, which wouldn't be cost effective, for example you couldn't even use commodity RAM.
That's absolutely no problem if you design it with some reserves in mind. If you know that at around 80 sensor temperature the thing starts crashing, make sure it doesn't reach 70.
Of course Microsoft seemed to have pushed everything to the limit in the XBox360 and that causes lots of (IMO unnecessary) problems.
Well, I have to say I have no way to be sure that PS3 will use as much power. But I would bet significant amounts of money on it. By "as much", I mean within 25%, for a rated of 160W, 120W typical. This would also be too hot to run in a typical unvented stereo enclosure. With an NVidia graphics chip in there, plus the Power PC, plus 8 coprocessors it's not going to be a cool device either. I mean, check the power usage ratings on current NVidia graphics chips, they can easily take 80W on their own, and an optical drive can take 5-10W more easy (depending on whether it is a laptop-type drive or regular one like 360 uses). That leaves 30-35W for the RAM, CPU and cooling system power draw. But we'll just have to finish this discussion when PS3 comes out.
I consider the PS2 (moderate power usage, INTERNAL power supply) a pretty good design, of course that doesn't guarantee that the PS3 will be, too. If the PS3 will be crap, that doesn't make the XBox360 any better.
Anyway: Yes, an NVidia-chip can suck down 80W on its own, however only if run at full speed. Again, if we look at PS2, which AFAIk runs at somewhere around 200 MHz, which was roughly 1/2 to 1/3 of what PC-CPUs were running at that time (see for example here), then it's quite possible that Sony is smart and clocks the PS3 at some speed that doesn't push every part to the limit, hopefully they also keep the internal power supply.
I mean, let's be realistic here: The PS2 and XBox1 are already "fast enough" for most games and there is absolutely no pressing need for more power. Don't get me wrong, of course the new generation has to beat the old one by a longshot, but there is absolutely no need anymore to push it so far that overheating becomes an issue.
But of course we will see. But if PS2 gives any hints about what PS3 will be (and since PS2 was the most successful console ever, they will keep what was successfull if they are smart) then the PS3 will not use a brute-force approach.
Microsoft seems to have not noticed yet, but the console-business lifes off the GAMES and not the h
This is exactly the kind of fanboyism that encourages companies to put out crappy products.
Nobody is asking MS to violate the laws of thermodynamics, however:
That would kill OpenOffice instantly. Even OpenOffice fans (like me) could no longer use it.
I agree on 1 and 2, though.
Actually mplayer is great, you can run it with GUI (which I personally don't need because the keyboard and mouse navigation works great without it) or without. It's fast, it's simple, it's customizable and it does what it should do.
being a parent
being a parent of a given sex
having kids
having a certain number of kids
I'm usually not one of the "think of the children"-types, but yes, it has something to do with all this.
The whole reason we have laws is to protect people from each other, to keep up order and to benefit society.
Now where is the gain for society when this mother of 5 goes to jail on the taxpayer's expense?
I mean, hey, she's not some threat to society, would you be afraid of her if you would meet her alone in the park in the dark?
The whole thing is just ridiculous. If keeping up the whole copyright-thing means that thousands of lifes are destroyed just because of a handful of songs, then it's time to abolish or reform copyright because it harms society more than it benefits.
Do you really think a lot of people would buy any version of Windows after Windows 95 if Windows 95 didn't contain any bugs?
You must be one of the really naive types...
Sure all this isn't something that you will feel overnight. You won't save any money in the week after you migrate. But you will save money, when Microsoft releases Windows Vista and again a few years later when they release the next version. You will save money because you don't get constantly new bugs and security holes (Maybe Microsoft made the Win32 API quite save by now, but wait for Avalon...)
So yes, it does make sense, but only if you take a long-term view.
Actually, Microsoft has a lot of commercial interest in the Win32-platform (Windows-licenses, MSDN-subscriptions, courses, etc.) which is of course endangered by the Web.
That is why they wanted to establish their own network (MSN) with their own proprietary protocols and their own proprietary formats. They failed miserably and now MSN is just a normal ISP and uses Unix protocols and formats like anybody else. Microsoft did not "win" the Browser war, the whole Internet Explorer thing was damage control. After Netscape was dead, Microsoft was stuck with something they didn't really want. (An IE that was dominating but was running with open protocols and formats.) The better IE is, the more attractive the web becomes in comparison to Win32. So of course they let it rot, making IE better would have been counterproductive.
After Firefox started to destroy domination by becoming so big that it can no longer be ignored (over 10% and rising is too much to ignore, even if it's still a minority) therefore Microsoft fell back to damage control mode.
However, there are several reasons why IE will NEVER regain total domination:
All these factors combined will prevent IE from regaining significant marketshare and will cause further decline for IE in the long term that might be slowed but not stopped by Microsoft.
But it does draw some watts - only exact measurements could tell how much exactly, probably somewhere between 5 and 50 Watts - anyway since the maker doesn't have to pay the energy bill and consumers are in general unaware about it, there is no reason to be economical when in standby mode.
With around 2$ per Watt per year, all those power supplies that constantly suck juice day and night for devices in standby (Everything today: Computer, monitor, TV, CVR, game console, cellphone recharger, supply for USB-harddrive, etc. etc.) all add up and may cost a few hundred dollars per year.
Oh yeah, and devices in standby are the number one reason for fires in residential areas today.
If the thing is so fragile that you can't even put the power supply on a bed(!), guess what will happen in a few months when dust (= good insulator) collects on all those power supplies.
Also, external power supplies are crap anyway. They constantly suck power even when the device is off. - That's why they are always warm.
At least the PS2 has a real power switch (you know the mechanical kind) and an internal power supply, I hope they keep it that way with the PS3.
Ewww, that's just another "folk science" website. It essentially puts together some numbers and lulls people into judging them with their gut and not with their brain.
Or to put it in another way: It's irrelevant wether your gut thinks that man-made amounts of CO2 are too small to affect the climate. That's now the way you do science. In science you use the brain and not the gut. Fact is that during thousands of years rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature. Fact is that in the last decades rises in CO2-concentration were followed by rises in temperature.
Fact is also that man puts lots of CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing the vegetation that absorbs CO2.
You say: "I offered more and more opposing evidence" but you don't post any. All the anti-global-warming websites are just like anti-evolution websites: They attack some details, come up with outdated or just plain wrong numbers and most importantly they don't offer any explanation at all.
Essentially the anti-global-warming position is that it's just a coincidence that we have the highest CO2-concentration and highest temperatures in hundreds of thousands of years. Which is no explanation at all. To say that some cycle that "we don't understand" is responsible is just like saying that God did it (like the anti-evolutionists) or that it's just a coincidence that the highest temperatures fall in the period of the industrial revolution. The anti-global-warming people provide exactly zero evidence for their "cycle"-theory, their whole theory is based on belief, not fact - and wishful thinking (that we don't have to change anything) of course.
On top of all that the most stupid point of all is: The "We don't understand it perfectly, so let's just do what we want" - argument. Sane people would say that you have to be extra-careful if you don't understand what concequences your actions have. Only a complete moron thinks that lack of understanding is a reason to mess even more with things.
That's easy:
Because believing it would mean that we would have to change our "way of life"
And who wants to do that? Right: Nobody.