In section g of the 'Apple Licensed Application End User License Agreement' it states:
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
I participate in local 'LAN parties' fairly often (3-4 times a year). We tend to get about 60 people turn up to each one and it seems to be getting more popular at each event, so I'd say that there is still a place for LAN play.
We also occasionally set up our own small LAN (about 10 of us) at a friends house.
One of the great things about playing LAN is that you're all in the same room, so you can sort teams and communicate between your team easier, which I find gives a much better gaming experience. It's much more fun than sitting alone in front of your computer talking into a headset.
So for me, and quite a few people I know, LAN play is important in a game, and when a game only has online multiplayer and no LAN, it's pretty shit. 60 people playing an online game through a 2Mbps connection doesn't work too well...
It would be 18TB wouldn't it? I thought RAID 6 had a usable capacity of (n-2)*S, where n is the number of disks in the array, and S is the size of the smallest disk?
So (5-2)*3TB = 9TB, which is then doubled with the stripe to give 18TB.
My ZX Spectrum doesn't handle Crysis very well, its probably because of the 16K memory. Maybe I should get something newer with more memory, 640K ought to be about enough for anybody.
If you can't sustain 450kbps, you're either not paying for the 5MB line OnLive will require, or you're not getting your money's worth and should be complaining.
I'm paying for 'up to 8mb' but because my ISP is useless and we live more than a mile from our exchange, we have been told that we can't get anything above 4mb, which sucks major balls.
The main thing I use my internet connection for is watching iplayer/youtube and playing a few games (as well as the usual web browsing) in which case its adequate, but when my housemates are torrenting or watching youtube HD it has a noticeable effect on my connection.
Well I'd imagine that games such as Crysis would be almost unplayable (especially on 'Ultra' graphics settings, which I expect most people would want to use) as the amount of data needed to be sent from the server to your computer would be massive in comparison to the data transferred when playing a 'normal' game online, and I'm sure the lag would be huge.
Looking at the article it says that it uses about 700-900kbps download speed, I'd be lucky to sustain 450kpbs for any length of time, and I don't know many people who can get a constant 900kbps (I live in a fairly large city in the UK). Plus there's latency on top of that depending on how far you are from the server.
I don't really see this catching on if I'm honest.
People that play graphically intensive games online are likely to also play those games in single player, or other single player games as well, and I doubt OnLive will be serving single player games in this way, and even if they do who is going to want to play a single player game with all the lag of a multiplayer? And most of these people will have higher-than-average spec computers anyway, so playing games wont be an issue.
And games like WOW etc. aren't particularly demanding of hardware, any mid spec or even most low spec computers made in the last few years will be able to handle it no problem.
And what about people that want to play games over LAN sometimes? Having the game installed locally on your machine is much better than having it stored miles away on someone elses server that you don't have any real access to.
I've always wanted a pipboy on my wrist, FO3 style so I can check if my legs are broken and how many HP I have left. It could certainly come in handy for things like that.
Do these figures include the time that they are at school etc.? As 1:29 using computers is pretty low, do they not study any IT at all?
Including work time I usually spend about 14-15 hours at a computer each week day.
My usage would look something like this:
TV 0:20
Music/Audio 5:00
Computer 15:00
Games 1:30
Print 0:05
Movies 0:30
But a lot of that overlaps as I watch TV/Movies, listen to music and play games all on my computer.
I find the 122 hour battery life a bit hard to swallow, I'll believe it when I see it.
I'd be more than happy if a slate computer with a decent feature set had a battery life of about 6 hours to be honest.
It would make no difference to me if the battery life on my e-book was 122 hours or 122 minutes, because I'm not the sort of person who reads books for 10 consecutive hours a day for 2 weeks without being able to get to a power outlet.
I used Vista 64 for about a year and had no major issues, other than the amount of resources it used, compatibility was pretty decent and I was overall happy with it.
When 7 came along it completely shadowed Vista, it was superior in every way. I've found my copy of 7 64bit to work very smoothly, I haven't had any issues at all with it if I'm honest. I've had no driver issues, all of my hardware and peripherals are supported, which is nice. Compare it to XP64 and its approx. 10^infinity times better.
Hmmm, I wonder what the price will be. It will be fairly similar to a slate if it has web-browsing etc. but with less functionality, so depending on its cost you might just be better off getting a cheap slate computer.
Good job I run W7 64-bit then I guess.
I remember when I tried using XP64, what a pile of crap that was. I'm glad they have sorted the compatibility issues in newer releases.
Slashdot Mirror
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/dev/stdeula/
I don't really see how could he be the doctor when he was already in 2 Dr Who episodes if I'm honest, that would be a bit weird.
He played Rodrick in the episodes 'Bad wolf' and 'The parting of ways'.
That's not bad spelling, its bad grammar.
LAN play is dead.
I participate in local 'LAN parties' fairly often (3-4 times a year). We tend to get about 60 people turn up to each one and it seems to be getting more popular at each event, so I'd say that there is still a place for LAN play.
We also occasionally set up our own small LAN (about 10 of us) at a friends house.
One of the great things about playing LAN is that you're all in the same room, so you can sort teams and communicate between your team easier, which I find gives a much better gaming experience. It's much more fun than sitting alone in front of your computer talking into a headset.
So for me, and quite a few people I know, LAN play is important in a game, and when a game only has online multiplayer and no LAN, it's pretty shit. 60 people playing an online game through a 2Mbps connection doesn't work too well...
That's numberwang!
RAID 60 or 6+0 is 2 RAID 6 arrays striped.
RAID 0 is striping, not mirroring. RAID 0 doesn't lose you any capacity.
It would be 18TB wouldn't it? I thought RAID 6 had a usable capacity of (n-2)*S, where n is the number of disks in the array, and S is the size of the smallest disk?
So (5-2)*3TB = 9TB, which is then doubled with the stripe to give 18TB.
My ZX Spectrum doesn't handle Crysis very well, its probably because of the 16K memory. Maybe I should get something newer with more memory, 640K ought to be about enough for anybody.
When will they be adapting these lasers to be attached to the heads of sharks?
Stop right there criminal scum!
Last time I used steam they accepted PayPal, so that's what I use as I don't want a credit card either.
If you can't sustain 450kbps, you're either not paying for the 5MB line OnLive will require, or you're not getting your money's worth and should be complaining.
I'm paying for 'up to 8mb' but because my ISP is useless and we live more than a mile from our exchange, we have been told that we can't get anything above 4mb, which sucks major balls.
The main thing I use my internet connection for is watching iplayer/youtube and playing a few games (as well as the usual web browsing) in which case its adequate, but when my housemates are torrenting or watching youtube HD it has a noticeable effect on my connection.
Well I'd imagine that games such as Crysis would be almost unplayable (especially on 'Ultra' graphics settings, which I expect most people would want to use) as the amount of data needed to be sent from the server to your computer would be massive in comparison to the data transferred when playing a 'normal' game online, and I'm sure the lag would be huge.
Looking at the article it says that it uses about 700-900kbps download speed, I'd be lucky to sustain 450kpbs for any length of time, and I don't know many people who can get a constant 900kbps (I live in a fairly large city in the UK). Plus there's latency on top of that depending on how far you are from the server.
I don't really see this catching on if I'm honest.
People that play graphically intensive games online are likely to also play those games in single player, or other single player games as well, and I doubt OnLive will be serving single player games in this way, and even if they do who is going to want to play a single player game with all the lag of a multiplayer? And most of these people will have higher-than-average spec computers anyway, so playing games wont be an issue.
And games like WOW etc. aren't particularly demanding of hardware, any mid spec or even most low spec computers made in the last few years will be able to handle it no problem.
And what about people that want to play games over LAN sometimes? Having the game installed locally on your machine is much better than having it stored miles away on someone elses server that you don't have any real access to.
I've always wanted a pipboy on my wrist, FO3 style so I can check if my legs are broken and how many HP I have left. It could certainly come in handy for things like that.
Do these figures include the time that they are at school etc.? As 1:29 using computers is pretty low, do they not study any IT at all?
Including work time I usually spend about 14-15 hours at a computer each week day.
My usage would look something like this:
TV 0:20
Music/Audio 5:00
Computer 15:00
Games 1:30
Print 0:05
Movies 0:30
But a lot of that overlaps as I watch TV/Movies, listen to music and play games all on my computer.
I find the 122 hour battery life a bit hard to swallow, I'll believe it when I see it.
I'd be more than happy if a slate computer with a decent feature set had a battery life of about 6 hours to be honest.
It would make no difference to me if the battery life on my e-book was 122 hours or 122 minutes, because I'm not the sort of person who reads books for 10 consecutive hours a day for 2 weeks without being able to get to a power outlet.
I used Vista 64 for about a year and had no major issues, other than the amount of resources it used, compatibility was pretty decent and I was overall happy with it.
When 7 came along it completely shadowed Vista, it was superior in every way. I've found my copy of 7 64bit to work very smoothly, I haven't had any issues at all with it if I'm honest. I've had no driver issues, all of my hardware and peripherals are supported, which is nice. Compare it to XP64 and its approx. 10^infinity times better.
Hmmm, I wonder what the price will be. It will be fairly similar to a slate if it has web-browsing etc. but with less functionality, so depending on its cost you might just be better off getting a cheap slate computer.
Good job I run W7 64-bit then I guess. I remember when I tried using XP64, what a pile of crap that was. I'm glad they have sorted the compatibility issues in newer releases.
Taking images of Mars is fine, but if they start taking pictures of Uranus you should call the police.
I once beat world of woodcraft. Twice.
I once tried to set my password to 'penis'. It said that my password was too short....