There are all sorts of psychological reasons someone may be more or less creative and productive from one day to the next. I see myself with varying levels of creativity and productivity often as a result of my current state of mind. For some people that means they have to constantly switch things up to stay fresh. In the example of people who can't stand using Word anymore I would suggest that this might be the reason -- because it's no longer new or because they know that millions of other people across the world are looking at essentially the same thing they are at this very instant. For some that might make them feel small or insignificant, which I honestly don't think are productive perspectives when one is trying to write something from the perspective of an omniscient observer.
Word 2007 happens to be an excellent program. But it could be the greatest program in the world and these people would still feel an urge to switch to something else because they allow themselves to be distracted by these things. It's easy to blame Word for the problem when in fact it is your own inability to disconnect from your physical environment and get into a mindset that is good for the creative process. Which, if you ask me, means you have to forget about where you are, what program you might have, what char you might be sitting in, and anything else specific about your physical surroundings. Without being able to do that, at least for getting into the right mindset, you are surely going to fail.
I think I speak for everyone when I say...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Someone has writer's block and is taking it out on Word. If they really want to be the 'creator' then perhaps they should try making some rice paper, some ink, and a pen. Then they can get to work.
Well you've at least convinced me that neither format will be disappearing any time soon. I really have no idea what percentage of homes have HD or "HD Ready" TVs in them. I certainly doubt it is approaching 50%. I am curious to see what effect Warner's decision has on the battle in the coming months, but I am convinced now that it's not going to be any sooner than that before we see a real swing towards one or the other, if ever.
I don't see that it will be a strong selling point to charge someone more money (even marginally) to be able to play a format that the major studios aren't even making anymore. Warner has a rather large movie base to offer, and now none of that will be available on HD-DVD, ever. So the only option is either you get Blu-Ray only or you get something which plays both.
Right now there are studios who have exclusively chosen HD-DVD, such as Paramount. As long as two major studios are on opposite sides then both formats will survive, and dual-format players will continue to be viable. The minute the major studios move to one or the other spells the end for the format they don't choose.
And for all they know, the companies making the dual format players could find out tomorrow that Paramount et al are moving to Blu-Ray and then all of their time and money spent creating dual-format players was wasted entirely. So I ask you again, are you absolutely sure that they are still even in development beyond the single player LG released? LG released this player a while back as I recall. Why have no more players come to market for dual-format?
I think the final swing is going to happen fairly soon. I also think you underestimate the amount of HD tvs in households today. It is at the point where adoption is about to grow exponentially. The time for a slow crawl, for early adoption, is far over.
Just think about this: How often do you even see a new non-HD TV for sale anymore? Who would buy a non-HD TV when they aren't much less than a 720p flat panel which you can get for well under a thousand dollars now?
The time is coming and right now it looks like Blu-Ray is going to be the winner.
Prices for the dual format player today are in the range of $500-800, depending on your source. Retail they are at least $699. On eBay you can probably get one for $500.
Contrast this with the PS3 which is $399 after the recent price drop and the fact that Warner has signed on for Blu-Ray officially now, and you ask yourself if that $100-$300 extra is worth the ability to play HD-DVDs at all.
But let's take it another step. Let's say you want to either buy the Dual Format player, or you want to buy the PS3 AND a stand-alone HD-DVD player.
The current cheapest you can get these stand-alone HD-DVD players is roughly $150, again, from eBay. Add that $150 to the $399 for the PS3 and now you can play both formats AND you get the gaming and media server/internet/extras of the PS3 to boot. Or you can get none of the potential of the PS3 and just get the dual format player (which I might mention has been known to have issues.)
Which one would you pick? To me, getting the PS3 right now is a given. For $399 it's the cheapest (and also one of the best) Blu-Ray players you can buy. Not only that, it finally has some decent games and more on the horizon AND it can server a media server that hooks up to your computer. It can also replace any older DVD player you might have as well, and upscales them quite nicely.
The clear choice is getting the PS3. If you really want then you can get HD-DVD for the $150 later. But at this point it's not going to be a very smart move until HD-DVD does something to swing favor back towards them after this recent Warner Decsision.
Indeed, there's a couple of companies working on dual format players right now. So it very well could work out that both formats continue to be released by different studios.
Welcome to last year, when LG released the first dual-format player. BTW, are you aboslutely sure these 'couple of companies' (reference please?) are still going to be working on these players now that Warner has said they're going Blu-Ray only? Absolutely?
You sound like someone who either 1) Owns a 360 w/HD-DVD player and no PS3 OR 2) Owns an HD-DVD player AND a bunch of movies in that format. Well, it was a gamble. I gambled buying the PS3 and a bunch of Blu-ray movies. Seems like a good idea now. Not so much for yourself. Oh well, shit happens.
I honestly did want people to tear up my post. Mostly because I myself was curious about the things I would read. Like your post, for example. And yours wasn't the only one. But the main thing is that I don't know for sure if you can quantitatively or qualitatively measure AND compare the effectiveness (effciency notwithstanding) of a product produced by people who make their living from it vs. people who just do it 'for fun'. Obviously these large coporate machines that churn out software are doing it successfully enough that people buy the software and use it, and do so more than the software produced by the Legion of Geekdom, or open source.
I'm not against the concept that the LoG could make a better product, or even that they already have. I am simply asking you why, if this is the case, do we not wind up using their solutions? You say this:
Open source _is_ better than Microsoft and Apple. And that's with Apple having gotten a lot of stuff from the open source community.
So is it a result of Apple 'borrowing' ideas from the LoG that Apple is enjoying more of a market share? Surely if the LoG was the originator of the quality, and not the borrower, they could stay ahead of the Apple corporate machine and find their usage statistics climbing faster than Apples accordingly. And yet this it not the case.
So to what can we attribute the success of Apple's product vs. the Legion's? That is what I am most curious about. Is it marketing? Is it simple inertia? Sometimes it seems like Microsoft is just riding on their past achievements, coasting on their inertia. Perhaps their declining market share for computer OS shows just this. But what of Linux vs. Apple?
It's true, we're both just talking out of our orifices. I didn't mean to wave the flag of logic and claim victory -- I know here on Slashdot that I am somewhere in the first or second sigma in terms of the infallibility of my logic. Not exactly a pretty picture. So I apologize for posting with a hidden agenda of just wanting to read the replies out of curiousity.
When the trend is UPWARDS, I.E. when Linux is being used MORE than before, then why does it make sense to use the word 'killing'? Surely if the trend was downwards this would be sensible, but not the other way around?
And also.. it's very easy to blame others for your problems. What problems are those? Well, they are the plusses of Apple's and Microsoft's solutions. They are those software or productivity suites that those respective companies have which Linux does not have. It is not Apple or Microsoft's fault they have those things as much as it is Linux's fault for NOT having them, or for what they do have simply not being as good. You can only blame yourself for what you lack in comparison to what is the widely accepted and used norm.
It's all a geek dream anyway, that people doing work for free is going to somehow outperform people who do their jobs to get paid and rely on that payment to sustain the quality of living they are used to. Not to mention that during this time that the people are writing free software they have to be working for a living; working on other projects and with other distractions. It just doesn't add up that Linux could be better than Apple, or even Microsoft, despite how completely fucked Vista seems to be so far.
Now, I know there are many ways you can tear up the logic in this post, and I freely encourage you to do so. But ultimately what you need to do is explain why, if my logic is flawed, the situation is as it remains today.
So you can discover the mechanics... Well congrats to you. Likely you'll find that from game to game in the same genre, like from MMO to MMO or FPS to FPS, the mechanics are generally THE SAME ACROSS THE GENRE. In FPS games you get armor, you get damage, you get running, jumping, crouching, rolling, you get modifiers to the damage or mitigation you have. You get modifiers to your aim through calming down your natural sway from breathing. Great, now you know the 'inner workings'. Congratufuckinglations.
What makes a game good, a game well designed, is that the mechanics are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth and the ability for a person to feel unique in the game and yet still powerful or useful. And also how the art direction melds with those mechanics. And how polished they are. And the story.
Using the mechanics that way is a creative art. You can go play other games and see the mechanics, but if you aren't creative yourself the best you can do is copy them. And how is that going to get you ahead of the game? You're going to regurgitate and retexture something that is already out there, and the likely case is that yours will quite quickly fall behind that which you copied because, to put it bluntly, you are a copying, plagiarisng, asshole.
So tell me then... Once the OS and the Internet start to become seamless (as if they aren't aleady getting there)... Are you going to ask Microsoft to unbundle its OS from itself? This is bullshit, and I like Opera, but fuck them. And fuck the EU for even considering this. This is Microsoft's OS, and they can ship it however the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or are you forgetting that there are actually other options, like OS X and Linux (of many flavors)?
You know what this is? It's jealousy, and it's greed. It's not ethical. It's not reasonable. And I am saying this despite the fact that I don't even like Microsoft all that much.
But people who support this bullshit, they are even worse than MS. I couldn't even begin to imagine what Microsoft would be like if it was run by people like this. You think Microsoft is bad now? ROFL.
I bought a new computer shortly after Windows XP was released. My old PC had been getting on in years, and when it died I picked up my current laptop to replace it. I was a bit uncertain about using XP since I had heard so many bad reviews about it, but it came pre-installed so I figured I would give it a go. After a few months of using it, I realised I was right to be worried. At least on my laptop, it was slow as hell, and buggy. It would freeze for no reason, and crash out of programs that Windows 95 had run without a hitch. Several of my friends had similar experiences. I considered going back to the store and requesting a tech have a look at it, but having worked in a similar place myself, I figured they wouldn't be able to do anything that I hadn't tried myself (and at the very best, they would send it away to be "looked at" and I would be sans laptop for a few weeks). So instead, I uninstalled the OS, and reinstalled 95. My machine is now flying along and hasn't crashed since.
Eerie, eh?
But you know what the truth of the matter is. As more and more computers ship with Vista pre-installed (all of the major companies are doing this, so their numbers are growing each day) the support base will strengthen and Vista will become a better, more manageable, OS. The switch over to Windows XP from a computer designed for Windows 95 wasn't all that fun, as I recall. It took a couple years before you could run XP Pro at anything like a 'flying along' pace. But now that is what we're used to, and today's computers mostly blaze with XP.
Just wait another year. History will repeat itself.
As a citizen of the world I believe you should remember that if we get rid of our military powers we will be free game for the Aliens orbiting quietly waiting for just that. Boards and nails man, boards and nails!
See, I ask because I have health insurance. You know, because I work hard and earn a living. And so I have a pretty damn good career.
So what exactly is this NHS going to accomplish for me that I am not already doing for myself? I can guess one thing: it's going to raise my taxes eventually.
Well, where to start. You come out of the gate saying Halo is a crappy game, when pretty much the entire world disagrees with you on some level. Isn't there a word for that?
What you "think" to be the case has nothing to do with what the case happens to be, and lacking any evidence (even anecdotal) to the contrary it can safely be assumed and stated that the co-op has had no effect on the sales of the game.
No. What you "think" to be the case has nothing to do with what the case happens to be, which is that some people do buy the game because it has co-op and wouldn't have bought it otherwise. And how is my lack of evidence to backup my statement any different than your lack of evidence to backup yours? Oh BTW, if you check your replies, there is anecdotal evidence for you that someone was strongly influence by the co-op mode to buy the game.
Let me explain something for you, since you seem to be antisocial you might not have figured this out for yourself.
When I go to the video game section in a store and browse the games one of the things I check for is how many people can play it at once. Games offering more than just single player are always, every time, given more consideration. Why? Because it's not fun for someone to have to sit there and watch you play a game on the only TV in the house. And the TV is often on, often a center of attention, and often if you can ask whoever else is around to play the game with you, that is a much more amenable situation than asking someone to WATCH.
You know what? I don't even know what I am writing this. You clearly just don't get it.
Yea, we at the more mature stage in our lives call them "Women". I know the term scares you in a deep and profound way, but some day you will come to actually appreciate them, until you marry one, and then you will move from "Women" to "Bloodsucking Demons". It's all part of the natural order of thing.
So yea, it's not Mario Galaxy, but I think you're wrong. I think the Co-Op playability is great, and yes, the game would've sold strongly without it, but I think it is doing even better with it.
Yet you make the sweeping guarantee that it has "NOTHING" to do with it. By the way, even if a feature improves sales by only 5-10%, that is still a direct relationship, albeit one of a certain proportion which is less than 100%, which incidentally is a number no single feature of any game has ever obtained.
Granted, Amigas *were* thin.. but I don't remember seeing an Amiga that was that thin.. And while we're at it let's compare a display to an entire computer...Apples, meet oranges.
Slashdot Mirror
There are all sorts of psychological reasons someone may be more or less creative and productive from one day to the next. I see myself with varying levels of creativity and productivity often as a result of my current state of mind. For some people that means they have to constantly switch things up to stay fresh. In the example of people who can't stand using Word anymore I would suggest that this might be the reason -- because it's no longer new or because they know that millions of other people across the world are looking at essentially the same thing they are at this very instant. For some that might make them feel small or insignificant, which I honestly don't think are productive perspectives when one is trying to write something from the perspective of an omniscient observer.
Word 2007 happens to be an excellent program. But it could be the greatest program in the world and these people would still feel an urge to switch to something else because they allow themselves to be distracted by these things. It's easy to blame Word for the problem when in fact it is your own inability to disconnect from your physical environment and get into a mindset that is good for the creative process. Which, if you ask me, means you have to forget about where you are, what program you might have, what char you might be sitting in, and anything else specific about your physical surroundings. Without being able to do that, at least for getting into the right mindset, you are surely going to fail.
...dude, where's my car?
Someone has writer's block and is taking it out on Word. If they really want to be the 'creator' then perhaps they should try making some rice paper, some ink, and a pen. Then they can get to work.
Yeah, and if you tell anyone, I'll kill you! ;)
Regards.
Well you've at least convinced me that neither format will be disappearing any time soon. I really have no idea what percentage of homes have HD or "HD Ready" TVs in them. I certainly doubt it is approaching 50%. I am curious to see what effect Warner's decision has on the battle in the coming months, but I am convinced now that it's not going to be any sooner than that before we see a real swing towards one or the other, if ever.
No, they would have a PC and a Workstation.
I don't see that it will be a strong selling point to charge someone more money (even marginally) to be able to play a format that the major studios aren't even making anymore. Warner has a rather large movie base to offer, and now none of that will be available on HD-DVD, ever. So the only option is either you get Blu-Ray only or you get something which plays both.
Right now there are studios who have exclusively chosen HD-DVD, such as Paramount. As long as two major studios are on opposite sides then both formats will survive, and dual-format players will continue to be viable. The minute the major studios move to one or the other spells the end for the format they don't choose.
And for all they know, the companies making the dual format players could find out tomorrow that Paramount et al are moving to Blu-Ray and then all of their time and money spent creating dual-format players was wasted entirely. So I ask you again, are you absolutely sure that they are still even in development beyond the single player LG released? LG released this player a while back as I recall. Why have no more players come to market for dual-format?
I think the final swing is going to happen fairly soon. I also think you underestimate the amount of HD tvs in households today. It is at the point where adoption is about to grow exponentially. The time for a slow crawl, for early adoption, is far over.
Just think about this: How often do you even see a new non-HD TV for sale anymore? Who would buy a non-HD TV when they aren't much less than a 720p flat panel which you can get for well under a thousand dollars now?
The time is coming and right now it looks like Blu-Ray is going to be the winner.
Prices for the dual format player today are in the range of $500-800, depending on your source. Retail they are at least $699. On eBay you can probably get one for $500.
Contrast this with the PS3 which is $399 after the recent price drop and the fact that Warner has signed on for Blu-Ray officially now, and you ask yourself if that $100-$300 extra is worth the ability to play HD-DVDs at all.
But let's take it another step. Let's say you want to either buy the Dual Format player, or you want to buy the PS3 AND a stand-alone HD-DVD player.
The current cheapest you can get these stand-alone HD-DVD players is roughly $150, again, from eBay. Add that $150 to the $399 for the PS3 and now you can play both formats AND you get the gaming and media server/internet/extras of the PS3 to boot. Or you can get none of the potential of the PS3 and just get the dual format player (which I might mention has been known to have issues.)
Which one would you pick? To me, getting the PS3 right now is a given. For $399 it's the cheapest (and also one of the best) Blu-Ray players you can buy. Not only that, it finally has some decent games and more on the horizon AND it can server a media server that hooks up to your computer. It can also replace any older DVD player you might have as well, and upscales them quite nicely.
The clear choice is getting the PS3. If you really want then you can get HD-DVD for the $150 later. But at this point it's not going to be a very smart move until HD-DVD does something to swing favor back towards them after this recent Warner Decsision.
Sort of a nitpick but.. you told everyone not to install it on their personal Personal Computer.
;p
So.. yeah. You can -troll me now
Welcome to last year, when LG released the first dual-format player. BTW, are you aboslutely sure these 'couple of companies' (reference please?) are still going to be working on these players now that Warner has said they're going Blu-Ray only? Absolutely?
You sound like someone who either 1) Owns a 360 w/HD-DVD player and no PS3 OR 2) Owns an HD-DVD player AND a bunch of movies in that format. Well, it was a gamble. I gambled buying the PS3 and a bunch of Blu-ray movies. Seems like a good idea now. Not so much for yourself. Oh well, shit happens.
I'm not against the concept that the LoG could make a better product, or even that they already have. I am simply asking you why, if this is the case, do we not wind up using their solutions? You say this:
So is it a result of Apple 'borrowing' ideas from the LoG that Apple is enjoying more of a market share? Surely if the LoG was the originator of the quality, and not the borrower, they could stay ahead of the Apple corporate machine and find their usage statistics climbing faster than Apples accordingly. And yet this it not the case.
So to what can we attribute the success of Apple's product vs. the Legion's? That is what I am most curious about. Is it marketing? Is it simple inertia? Sometimes it seems like Microsoft is just riding on their past achievements, coasting on their inertia. Perhaps their declining market share for computer OS shows just this. But what of Linux vs. Apple?
It's true, we're both just talking out of our orifices. I didn't mean to wave the flag of logic and claim victory -- I know here on Slashdot that I am somewhere in the first or second sigma in terms of the infallibility of my logic. Not exactly a pretty picture. So I apologize for posting with a hidden agenda of just wanting to read the replies out of curiousity.
When the trend is UPWARDS, I.E. when Linux is being used MORE than before, then why does it make sense to use the word 'killing'? Surely if the trend was downwards this would be sensible, but not the other way around?
And also.. it's very easy to blame others for your problems. What problems are those? Well, they are the plusses of Apple's and Microsoft's solutions. They are those software or productivity suites that those respective companies have which Linux does not have. It is not Apple or Microsoft's fault they have those things as much as it is Linux's fault for NOT having them, or for what they do have simply not being as good. You can only blame yourself for what you lack in comparison to what is the widely accepted and used norm.
It's all a geek dream anyway, that people doing work for free is going to somehow outperform people who do their jobs to get paid and rely on that payment to sustain the quality of living they are used to. Not to mention that during this time that the people are writing free software they have to be working for a living; working on other projects and with other distractions. It just doesn't add up that Linux could be better than Apple, or even Microsoft, despite how completely fucked Vista seems to be so far.
Now, I know there are many ways you can tear up the logic in this post, and I freely encourage you to do so. But ultimately what you need to do is explain why, if my logic is flawed, the situation is as it remains today.
So you can discover the mechanics... Well congrats to you. Likely you'll find that from game to game in the same genre, like from MMO to MMO or FPS to FPS, the mechanics are generally THE SAME ACROSS THE GENRE. In FPS games you get armor, you get damage, you get running, jumping, crouching, rolling, you get modifiers to the damage or mitigation you have. You get modifiers to your aim through calming down your natural sway from breathing. Great, now you know the 'inner workings'. Congratufuckinglations.
What makes a game good, a game well designed, is that the mechanics are used and interchanged in interesting ways that create depth and the ability for a person to feel unique in the game and yet still powerful or useful. And also how the art direction melds with those mechanics. And how polished they are. And the story.
Using the mechanics that way is a creative art. You can go play other games and see the mechanics, but if you aren't creative yourself the best you can do is copy them. And how is that going to get you ahead of the game? You're going to regurgitate and retexture something that is already out there, and the likely case is that yours will quite quickly fall behind that which you copied because, to put it bluntly, you are a copying, plagiarisng, asshole.
So tell me then... Once the OS and the Internet start to become seamless (as if they aren't aleady getting there)... Are you going to ask Microsoft to unbundle its OS from itself? This is bullshit, and I like Opera, but fuck them. And fuck the EU for even considering this. This is Microsoft's OS, and they can ship it however the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or are you forgetting that there are actually other options, like OS X and Linux (of many flavors)?
You know what this is? It's jealousy, and it's greed. It's not ethical. It's not reasonable. And I am saying this despite the fact that I don't even like Microsoft all that much.
But people who support this bullshit, they are even worse than MS. I couldn't even begin to imagine what Microsoft would be like if it was run by people like this. You think Microsoft is bad now? ROFL.
I don't know if the light socket would work. But my friend has a cat, and that sounds like a GREAT idea to test.
Oh wait, his cat isn't modified. Well, I'll try it anyway.
"Western Digital restricts sales of network drives"
ggself
Crowdsourcing?
You mean..
Open source?
Difference?
Hey I know, let's make up buzzwords for things that already have them. Yes, that's going to help.... I say we brick this idea.
I bought a new computer shortly after Windows XP was released. My old PC had been getting on in years, and when it died I picked up my current laptop to replace it. I was a bit uncertain about using XP since I had heard so many bad reviews about it, but it came pre-installed so I figured I would give it a go. After a few months of using it, I realised I was right to be worried. At least on my laptop, it was slow as hell, and buggy. It would freeze for no reason, and crash out of programs that Windows 95 had run without a hitch. Several of my friends had similar experiences. I considered going back to the store and requesting a tech have a look at it, but having worked in a similar place myself, I figured they wouldn't be able to do anything that I hadn't tried myself (and at the very best, they would send it away to be "looked at" and I would be sans laptop for a few weeks). So instead, I uninstalled the OS, and reinstalled 95. My machine is now flying along and hasn't crashed since.
Eerie, eh?
But you know what the truth of the matter is. As more and more computers ship with Vista pre-installed (all of the major companies are doing this, so their numbers are growing each day) the support base will strengthen and Vista will become a better, more manageable, OS. The switch over to Windows XP from a computer designed for Windows 95 wasn't all that fun, as I recall. It took a couple years before you could run XP Pro at anything like a 'flying along' pace. But now that is what we're used to, and today's computers mostly blaze with XP.
Just wait another year. History will repeat itself.
As a citizen of the world I believe you should remember that if we get rid of our military powers we will be free game for the Aliens orbiting quietly waiting for just that. Boards and nails man, boards and nails!
What exactly is a National Health Service?
See, I ask because I have health insurance. You know, because I work hard and earn a living. And so I have a pretty damn good career.
So what exactly is this NHS going to accomplish for me that I am not already doing for myself? I can guess one thing: it's going to raise my taxes eventually.
No. What you "think" to be the case has nothing to do with what the case happens to be, which is that some people do buy the game because it has co-op and wouldn't have bought it otherwise. And how is my lack of evidence to backup my statement any different than your lack of evidence to backup yours? Oh BTW, if you check your replies, there is anecdotal evidence for you that someone was strongly influence by the co-op mode to buy the game.
Let me explain something for you, since you seem to be antisocial you might not have figured this out for yourself.
When I go to the video game section in a store and browse the games one of the things I check for is how many people can play it at once. Games offering more than just single player are always, every time, given more consideration. Why? Because it's not fun for someone to have to sit there and watch you play a game on the only TV in the house. And the TV is often on, often a center of attention, and often if you can ask whoever else is around to play the game with you, that is a much more amenable situation than asking someone to WATCH.
You know what? I don't even know what I am writing this. You clearly just don't get it.
Yea, we at the more mature stage in our lives call them "Women". I know the term scares you in a deep and profound way, but some day you will come to actually appreciate them, until you marry one, and then you will move from "Women" to "Bloodsucking Demons". It's all part of the natural order of thing.
I didn't buy Halo PC.. because it wasn't Co-Op.
So yea, it's not Mario Galaxy, but I think you're wrong. I think the Co-Op playability is great, and yes, the game would've sold strongly without it, but I think it is doing even better with it.
Yet you make the sweeping guarantee that it has "NOTHING" to do with it. By the way, even if a feature improves sales by only 5-10%, that is still a direct relationship, albeit one of a certain proportion which is less than 100%, which incidentally is a number no single feature of any game has ever obtained.
I don't get it... Right now the computer I am typing on uses only two states to do every computation it does.
So... what?
Granted, Amigas *were* thin.. but I don't remember seeing an Amiga that was that thin.. And while we're at it let's compare a display to an entire computer...Apples, meet oranges.