Let me just preface this by saying that 1) I don't own a GameCube, 2) I've only played Rogue Leader on demo Kiosks, 3) I never really liked the original Rogue Squadron, and 4) I'm a pretty big star wars fan (not a geek, I've only read a few of the non-canonical books and comics, but I enjoy star wars is what I'm saying). Now, let's have at it.
1. totally smooth framerate - its a monster 60 fps at all times regardless, period. makes for incredible play.
Maybe during gameplay, and I'll grant you that's the most important part, but what I've heard and read is that many of the cutscenes bog down a bit. Neither here nor there as far as gameplay is concerned, but it shoots down your "60 fps at all times" claim.
2. great graphics and really good scenery, pretty much the screenshots & previews are what you get, simply astounding.
The graphics are very nice, and fit the theme well (duh!), but there are shadowing problems, and polygon "cracking" problems in several places. (notably, watch the heads of the AT-AT's to see shadowing problems). Standard caveats about this being a first-gen title, and it's not using the full power of the Gamecube, and so on certainly apply, but it's still disappointing.
3. it's Star Wars! it's not some secret parallel star wars universe, it's actually the movies, you blow up the death star, you bring down AT's in hoth, you blow up the second Death Star, just great! Everything is just like the movie, which is a first and a welcome one.
This isn't the first Star Wars game to give you events right out of the movies. Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance (it was the last PC game based on the updated X-Wing/Tie Fighter engine) gave us the Battle of Endor, for instance.
4. AI - there are actually different levels of AI in the game all coming together at once! this is actually something I've never seen in a game. The groups of plans actually behave differently and swirl around you in a reallys stunning way. Bombers, tie's advanced tie's all doing there own thing all at once. They are clever too in the later boards, very slippery and hard to shoot down.
This, too, has been done before. To draw from past Star Wars games, even as early as the original X-Wing (playable on a 386, even!) had multiple AI levels for enemies within the same mission, ranging from cadet (rookie) to top ace (super pro). Plenty of other games have done this, as well (for instance, the Wing Commander series, to draw from the space flight genre again).
Overall, Rogue Leader is the best treatment to-date of the Star Wars space-fighting theme on a console, but if you have a PC, I really suggest you pick up a copy of X-Wing Alliance (still available -- LEC re-released it recently), especially if you want a more "realistic" flight model. The Rogue Squadron series just doesn't compare.
Console developers are given the barebones and very low-level libraries to play with.
Actually, console manufacturers tend to also develop higher-level libraries that game developers can use to get started. Sony did this with the PSX/PSOne, but not the PS2, and that caused the whole uproar about the PS2 being harder to target. The problem is not so much that the PS2 is weird (it is), but that developers were not given high-level libraries, so they have to sink a couple million up front to develop their own in-house libs before they can even get a game out to start bringing in the cash needed to fund such in-house development.
Sega provided high-level APIs (SegOS and WinCE w/ DX), Nintendo provides high-level APIs, and Microsoft does as well. Most 2nd gen and 3rd gen titles won't use those APIs, but that's okay. They're designed to let game houses get on their feet quickly, and get a game or two under their belts to provide a cash flow.
Why are you attributing physics to the PS2? The PS2 has no hardware or software native to it to deal with physics. That's something left up to the programmer on all systems. So really, the developer for that water racing game you're talking about has a better grip on physics than the developer for Wave Race, obviously. It's not the system that produces the effects for the physics.
Very true, but there are ways to do that kind of thing in hardware. For instance, pixel shaders make it very trivial and inexpensive to get correct refraction/reflection on water. Look at any XBox game that contains water for an example (Munch's Oddysey especially, but also DOA3. And Blood Wake, which will be out shortly, has the best water effects I've ever seen -- to the point that the keel-cam made people seasick, and thus Microsoft chose to get rid of that viewing option). The point? When it comes to simulating water, the XBox win hands down, no competition at all. But again, it does require a developer to at least have some grasp on the physics behind water and waves, like you said.
He did explicitly mention that the software was bundled, which leads one to assume that he was talking about all PC software. Maybe he was talking about Macs, or maybe he was just not clear in what he was saying. But the connontation from the post was that "Office 98" and Windows were preinstalled, and he sold off those licenses after converting to something else (probably Linux and StarOffice). Thus my comment on Office 98 not existing for Windows.
<flamebait>Of course, Australia and the surrounding area is nothing more than an extension of the United Kingdom, and so of course you all use PAL</flamebait>
More seriously, though, I was under the impression that Australia at least used NTSC. I could be wrong. I know NTSC (or a form thereof) is used in Asian countries.
Actually, PAL is 25 "frames per second", or more precisely running at 50Hz interlaced (50 half-frames per second, where three half frames make up two complete frames). NTSC runs at roughly 60Hz interlaced (roughly, because as you pointed out it's just slightly less than 30 "frames per second", and so it would be just slightly less than 60 Hz interlaced), meaning 50 half-frames per second. Now munge those numbers around, and I'm sure you can find some reason why a video in PAL format is dropping frames on an NTSC machine (and since the XBox has not had a European release yet, and the rest of the world uses various forms of NTSC, it's not so surprising the US XBoxes don't have correction for 50Hz->60Hz conversion).
Excellent post! Too many people (RMS included, it seems) forget that software does not just spring into existence at the whim of a user. Most good software comes about from a concerted effort of multiple developers, testers, and designers. These people may or may not work for free, but even when not being paid their time and effort is valuable. You don't have the right to have your car repaired for free, you don't have the right to free legal representation, and you don't have the right to free software. (using the "collective you", here.) If the developer(s) of a piece of software want you to have their software for free, or their source code, or whatever, great. But to insist on that is to overstep your bounds. You might have the right to demand better quality (assuming you paid for the software), or the right to request new features, but you don't have the right to demand the developer's IP for your own use.
Again, great post, and excellent analogy. Now if only I could talk a maid service into working for software...
This is extremely off-topic, but isn't the point of a comic strip supposed to be that the strip is funny, or has some form of humorous value to it? Does anybody find UF funny? Rehashed, boring, tired old Microsoft jokes, linux pandering, etc.
I won't even bother saying anything about the art, as anything that can be said about it already has been.
Windows 2000/XP also does this natively. It simply doesn't expose per-window control of it through the UI. Each window does have its own alpha level, and it's up to the programmer to decide if s/he wants all windows the same or not. For a good example, check out Lucidamp, a Winamp plugin that allows you to set varying levels of alpha transparency on each of the four main Winamp windows, and also works with the Mikroamp Winamp plugin.
Also, please note that Windows 2000 did this before OS X did this. Not that it matters, but it's true.
First off, Windows 2000 had this before OS X, so your claim that Microsoft only rips off from Apple is off-base. Second, this is more GUI bloat than OS bloat, if it's bloat at all. Windows 2000 and XP tastefully use this alpha blending in subtle ways, such as a barely-noticeable shadow under your mouse pointer, or fading out menu selections (giving you some subtle feedback on what you actually selected, while being tuneable in that you can change the menu speed or simply turn off fading effects). Yes, large windows employing this effect are a bit sluggish, but recent video hardware has 2D acceleration for alpha blending so it's not so bad, and is actually very useful for small windows like Winamp.
As far as a UI being "lean and fast as hell", you'll notice that Microsoft made little use of this effect, and in most places made it optional. I say "most places", because layered windows (Microsoft's term for windows that do some form of alpha blending) are now used instead of the old window regions, and are used with such things as Microsoft Agent (the technology behind the annoying Office Assistants) to bring them "outside the box" of a normal window. Whether or not you choose to use this utility to add alpha blending to all or some of your windows should not reflect at all on Microsoft, who simply chose to add this functionality (which is actually a very nice addition).
and now someone hacks it for Win2K. Gee...make it work on Windows XP.
There's no "hack" going on here. True alpha blending has been available since the Windows 2000 betas (well, at the very least RC1. I don't recall if it was in NT5 Beta 2, but that was a long time ago). This is just a matter of bookkeeping, really, as the interesting part is trivial.
Sure, but Windows 2000 beat OS X to the punch by nearly a year. Not that it really matters or anything, but if you want a "my OS is better than your OS argument", there you go.
I'd like to alpha blend a few things though: winamp comes to mind,...
Lucidamp to the rescue (yes, shameless pimpage. but I don't care!). Lucidamp has been applying alpha blending to Winamp for the better part of a year and a half (okay, so the first version sucked). There are others out there that will do this, both in Winamp plugin form (such as Lucidamp) and one-size-fits-all form like Glass2K, but I believe (and I'm biased here) that Lucidamp is the best when dealing only with Winamp.
Applying alpha blending to all windows is not really an interesting problem. There are some hoops to jump through, and you have to be realistic about what you expect, but otherwise it's a simple, straightforward process (don't believe me? This article gives you 90% of what you need to write such a tool. The other 10% is bookkeeping.)
More interesting is applying alpha blending to specific applications. This lets you be much more creative by doing something that complements an application. A translucent Internet Explorer is not interesting or useful (in fact, it's likely a drag on your system, and hard to read). A translucent Winamp, on the other hand, is a match made in heaven. What I'd really like to see is more application developers taking the time to add layered windows to their applications where it's appropriate, rather than taking this one-size-fits-all type of approach. But then, I've been playing with layered windows for a year and a half now, so maybe I'm just not getting the "wow" experience anymore.
The linux drivers are directly based on the Windows drivers. Sure, the interfaces into the linux kernel vs. interfaces into the win2k kernel are different, but otherwise there's no difference at all (which is also why the linux drivers perform within 1%-2% of the performance of the Windows drivers).
This works on all systems that use cmd.exe as the commandline shell (NT4, Win2K, WinXP). XP actually has a UI that will let you set your file completion character and directory completion character without editing the registry by hand (I still do it the regedit way, simply because it's faster).
Of course, their situation would be a lot simpler if they released source so that these things could be fixed by anyone as soon as a problem pops up
Who says you need source to fix problems? In this case, it's as simple as setting a password for th sa user. Anyway, the point is moot because this only affects SQL Server 7 and older. SQL Server 2000 makes you jump through hoops if you want to leave the sa password blank (as well, SQL auth isn't even the default. Instead, Windows domain auth is the default). Anyway, the point here is that source is absolutely not required to fix this problem. Just a small amount of brainpower, that's all.
Sorry bub, but it's still a PC system pretending to be an XBox. Majority of the games are all on the PC, except for a few that were paid off to make it XBox first THEN release it on the PC a few months later (Read: Halo). You wont find anything new that you can't already play on Win95.
So where exactly can I pick up DOA3 for my PC? Or Munch's Oddysey? Or Cel Damage, Fuzion Frenzy, Project Gotham Racing, NFL Fever 2002, Amped, and so on? Because the majority of these must be on the PC, right? Oh, wait, they're not. I wonder why...
Hell go to Best Buy and look side by side with the XBox and Gamecube. Xbox looks like my PC.. Bland but fast.. Gamecube looks awesome and totally jazzed up compared to anything on the PC(Xbox).
So it's the system's fault that the textures are bland? Nevermind that textures are just art, and it's up to the artist to make them look good. Besides, what games were you looking at? (I'll laugh if you say the Munch's Oddysey demo disk, as that is not indicative of the game at all) DOA3 has bright, lively textures and geometry, with many nice subtle touches, like being able to visually tell the difference between cloth types, nice water effects, snow that gets packed down as you walk over it, etc. Fuzion Frenzy is full of dark textures with lots of bright neon light effects and particles. I'll admit Halo is pretty boring graphically -- until you get into the outside world. Then it's astounding. My point? It takes a good artist to make any console look good, regardless of power. Nintendo definitely has them. Microsoft and affiliates also have them.
Now, the GameCube on the otherhand is almost entirely EXCLUSIVE Nintendo games.
I hope not, for Nintendo's sake. If this is going to be the case, then expect the GameCube to end up exactly like the N64 -- several Nintendo titles released per year, little from anybody else, and people only buy it for Pokemon or Mario Party. Nintendo has had problems wooing third-party developers lately, and unless they fix that, the Gamecube will not be a contender.
Games that will NEVER be surpassed in gameplay anywhere else.
In your opinion, of course. Some of us may not like some of those games. For instance, I thought the N64 versions of Zelda were pretty poorly done (yes, the graphics were pretty, and the control wasn't so bad, but they were boring). And if Metroid goes FPS like it appears to be doing (Metroid Prime), I'll pass on that, too.
Not to mention, the graphics just blow away the Xboxs easily. It doesnt matter who pushes more polys if they dont look good.
Again, in your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that the XBox is quite beautiful, as exemplified by DOA3 and Shrek (Shitty gameplay, awesome graphics). You're right in that the number of polys doesn't matter (well, not too much, though the number of polys does determine how detailed your models are going to be). You happen to like the more childish (not as an insult) art of Nintendo, while I like the art of DOA3, for instance. You play what you want, I'll play what i want. Sweeping generalizations need not apply.
It's a celeron processor with an nvidia video card.
Ah, but it's not a celeron. You'd know this, had you read Anandtech's article yesterday. And while it is an nVidia video card, it's not one you can go out and buy for your PC. Sure, it's somewhere between the GF3 and GF3ti500 in terms of clock and memory speed, but that's ignoring the extra shaders on the card. And it's also ignoring the fact that the XBox IS A CONSOLE. What that means is that it's hardware that won't change for 5+ years. Developers can write directly to that hardware, and do many other programming tricks that they can't do with a PC because they don't know what hardware their game will run on. Yes, it uses some PC hardware. That doesn't make it a PC (if that were the case, then the GameCube is a Macintosh).
Gaming consoles are ment to be DIFFERENT then when I play games on my PC. The XBox is making you play games that you could play on your PC except with not as high resolutions (unless you plug into a HDTV that costs over $3,000.)...
And the XBox IS different than the PC, where the games are concerned. While you might find Halo on a PC, you're not going to find Munch's Oddysey, Amped, DOA3, Cel Damage, SSX Trickey, and more. And as far as Halo goes, the XBox isn't the only console to have FPS games on it (nor is it the first). Hell, the old Super Nintendo had a port of Wolf3D. The PS2 has ports of NOLF and Half-Life , among many others. So just because you think that the FPS is the realm of computers doesn't make it so. But rarely will you play a fighting game or party game, for instance, on a PC. Oh, and you might want to go re-price HDTV's. You can get good ones for $2000 or so these days.
Play Metal Gear Solid 2 before you decide to jump on the xBox bandwagon.
And play Halo before you write off the XBox for good. Then again, there's nothing saying you can't have both an XBox and a PS2. or an XBox and a Gamecube, or PS2 and Gamecube, or even all three.
Re:Microsoft can't be to happy about this...
on
XBox Netplay Already
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Microsoft said time and again during the development of the XBox that you would be able to use whatever existing broadband ISP you have for internet access for your XBox (this only makes sense, as it would be extremely foolish for Microsoft to try to get into the cable/DSL/dedicated line business more than they already are). Halo was not an online game for quality issues and time constraints. Meaning, there was not enough time to accurately test Halo online and tweak it to run well and also go gold in time for the XBox launch. This isn't going to affect negatively, because
It'll very likely sell more XBox units. Even if those people only buy Halo, the fact that they have an XBox will very likely cause them to eventually buy more games (you cannot resist DOA3...).
If the online performance of Halo is shite, Microsoft can simply state that Halo was never meant for online play, and it only does so through the work of some hackers. I don't think many people will complain, though, as multiplayer Halo is fun (I've only played over a LAN, though), and PC gamers have learned to live with a bit of lag.
Anyway, as other people have already pointed out, Halo is likely the exception rather than the rule. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some games you could play online for free (look at the MSN Gaming Zone -- the premium content includes games like Crimson Skies that you can play online for free once you've bought the game, and also games like Asheron's Call that require a subscription even after buying the box), but I'm guessing most online games will require a subscription (probably a $10/mo subscription to some premium service that lets you play all your online games, rather than $10/game/mo).
However, I agree that the PS2 has not reached anywhere near its full potential yet, whereas the XBox is using well-known hardware, and thus will be already achieving much closer to its full potetial from the start. Which means great games at launch, but they will not improve as much as the PS2 has.
I agree that the XBox has well-known hardware, in the sense that much of it is standard PC components. However, to say that the XBox has pretty much maxed its potential with its launch titles is pretty short-sighted. Sure, DOA3 is freakin' awesome, but even it has room for improvement (I don't know how it could be improved visually, but I'm sure Tecmo will do it). Shrek is a very good example of the bump-mapping and texturing capabilities of the XBox (everything is bumpmapped, with multiple detail textures), but its gameplay isn't quite up to snuff. Halo is awesome, graphically and gameplay-wise, but it could use some work with the Dolby 5.1 audio. And on top of all of that, few developers have actually started using vertex and pixel shaders in PC games, and that's where the real power of the GF3 and XBox comes into play. Being programmable, you can do anything from skinning models with vertex shaders, to vertex shader-based animation, to per-pixel reflection and refraction for perfectly simulated water effects, or cloth effects (you can see some of this already, such as in DOA3 where you can tell the difference between a silk dress and a leather belt, or in NFL Fever 2002 where you can see the satiny sheen on jerseys before they get dirty). As well, no games utilize the XBox's native 2x, 4x, or Quincunx (a sloppy-4x AA, if you will) anti-aliasing, so visual quality can be improved even more still. And non-visually, since the XBox offloads much of the graphics work (all T&L, vertex and pixel shaders), there's more CPU time to do AI, physics, and other gameplay elements.
Also, what is the effect of Embedded WinXP+DX8 on the usable memory of the XBox? The GameCube may have less memory overall (but it does have very low latency 1T SRAM!), but it doesn't have to deal with possibly large operating systems...
First, a small nitpick -- the XBox is based on a highly-customized windows 2000 operating system, which doesn't do much more than provide access to the hard drive. It's a very light layer. In fact, it doesn't even do any virtual memory handling, so if you need to swap out the hard disk, you'll have to program that yourself. As far as DX8 goes, it's also been highly customized. Because the hardware isn't going to change, DX8 is now little more than a very thin layer over the graphics hardware. And what's more, developers need not use DX at all. As with the PSX, where Sony originally provided a C API but developers eventually wrote their own assembly routines (thus prompting Sony to not provide a C API for PS2, which caused the bitching and moaning about PS2 being hard to program, and effectively locked smaller dev houses out of the PS2 market), expect XBox developers to create their own in-house libraries for talking directly to the hardware. What DX allows is quick time to market, thus allowing developers to get a game under their belts (and the corresponding money), so that they can spend their time working on in-house libraries for game #2. It also allows for less up-front investments to get into XBox development (through Microsoft's grassroots program, interested developers can get the necessary information to begin development on qualified PCs, and once they obtain a publisher, will get the necessary XBox development hardware. At least one game scheduled for release within the next few months has gone through this process). Small dev houses that can't afford to target the PS2 can target the XBox instead.
Awesome license! I think I might start using that, or at least applying such a clause to any code I write. You made my day.
What's the alternative? Is anyone seriously suggesting that I must publish all code I write? If so, why are programmers different from, oh, lawyers? (They must represent anyone who demands their services, without compensation.) Or doctors and dentists? Or taxi drivers. Or anyone else in the service sector?
Actually, RMS is demanding you do just that. For "the good of humanity", or some such bullshit. As for the rest, programmers are no different than lawyers (or any of your other examples). Lawyers may take cases pro bono, and some may do that more often than others. But to expect and assume that any lawyer you speak with will take your case pro bono is to be absurdly naive. It's no different with programmers. Some may choose to write software for free, and give it away (with or without source). Many choose to get paid for their work. Some even do both. But to dictate that programmers should only give away their work (paid or not) is just as naive as expecting a lawyer to take your case pro bono. It's stupid and absurd.
1. Do you think it is right for someone to hack a Tivo and add an extra harddrive?
"Right" or "wrong" depends on whether or not you care about your service package or not. When you buy a tivo, you own that tivo. You can hack it all you want. But you may no longer be able to use your service agreement, meaning you'll lose a lot of functionality of your tivo. Trade-offs must be made.
2. Do you think it should be legal to sell any copy of Windows that you no longer use to someone else?
Most people will make the analogy that if you buy a toaster, you can sell it off when you're done. However, with a toaster, you can't keep a copy of it yourself and sell off the original. That's what the licensing clause is aimed at. If you're no longer using your copy of Windows, give it to somebody else. But if you still have it installed, then it's illegal to do so.
3. Do you think quoting a paragraph from a book in a written paper should be an illegal copyright infringement?
If you properly cite your source, you'll have no problems. This has always been legal, as long as you're just quoting and you cite where/who you quoted it from. Now, if you're looking to get published, you may need to get permission from the copyright holder, but only if you use a significant portion of their work in your own (quoting a few lines, or a paragraph or two is just fine, traditionally).
This means that I think that creators should not be allowed to release their work under any license they choose. I think there are restrictions that should not be enforced, and license "agreements" that I believe do not mean anything. This is what RMS is saying.
This is bullshit. The creators are the ones expending time, money, and effort to bring you a product (piece of hardware, software, a book, whatever). Therefore, they should be allowed to distribute that product however they please. If they wanted, they could have a license that requires you to send them a nude pic of yourself (if you're female) or your girlfriend/wife/sister (if you're not female) in exchange for their product. Few people would use what they're providing, but that's not the point. The point is that the ones behind the creative effort have that right. The only right you have as a user is the choice of using that person's product (and thus, following the license on penalty of potential legal action), or not. What RMS is saying is that the users should have more rights than that, but RMS is somewhat of an idealist and doesn't undestand how the world works.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me just preface this by saying that 1) I don't own a GameCube, 2) I've only played Rogue Leader on demo Kiosks, 3) I never really liked the original Rogue Squadron, and 4) I'm a pretty big star wars fan (not a geek, I've only read a few of the non-canonical books and comics, but I enjoy star wars is what I'm saying). Now, let's have at it.
Maybe during gameplay, and I'll grant you that's the most important part, but what I've heard and read is that many of the cutscenes bog down a bit. Neither here nor there as far as gameplay is concerned, but it shoots down your "60 fps at all times" claim.
The graphics are very nice, and fit the theme well (duh!), but there are shadowing problems, and polygon "cracking" problems in several places. (notably, watch the heads of the AT-AT's to see shadowing problems). Standard caveats about this being a first-gen title, and it's not using the full power of the Gamecube, and so on certainly apply, but it's still disappointing.
This isn't the first Star Wars game to give you events right out of the movies. Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance (it was the last PC game based on the updated X-Wing/Tie Fighter engine) gave us the Battle of Endor, for instance.
This, too, has been done before. To draw from past Star Wars games, even as early as the original X-Wing (playable on a 386, even!) had multiple AI levels for enemies within the same mission, ranging from cadet (rookie) to top ace (super pro). Plenty of other games have done this, as well (for instance, the Wing Commander series, to draw from the space flight genre again).
Overall, Rogue Leader is the best treatment to-date of the Star Wars space-fighting theme on a console, but if you have a PC, I really suggest you pick up a copy of X-Wing Alliance (still available -- LEC re-released it recently), especially if you want a more "realistic" flight model. The Rogue Squadron series just doesn't compare.
Actually, console manufacturers tend to also develop higher-level libraries that game developers can use to get started. Sony did this with the PSX/PSOne, but not the PS2, and that caused the whole uproar about the PS2 being harder to target. The problem is not so much that the PS2 is weird (it is), but that developers were not given high-level libraries, so they have to sink a couple million up front to develop their own in-house libs before they can even get a game out to start bringing in the cash needed to fund such in-house development.
Sega provided high-level APIs (SegOS and WinCE w/ DX), Nintendo provides high-level APIs, and Microsoft does as well. Most 2nd gen and 3rd gen titles won't use those APIs, but that's okay. They're designed to let game houses get on their feet quickly, and get a game or two under their belts to provide a cash flow.
Very true, but there are ways to do that kind of thing in hardware. For instance, pixel shaders make it very trivial and inexpensive to get correct refraction/reflection on water. Look at any XBox game that contains water for an example (Munch's Oddysey especially, but also DOA3. And Blood Wake, which will be out shortly, has the best water effects I've ever seen -- to the point that the keel-cam made people seasick, and thus Microsoft chose to get rid of that viewing option). The point? When it comes to simulating water, the XBox win hands down, no competition at all. But again, it does require a developer to at least have some grasp on the physics behind water and waves, like you said.
He did explicitly mention that the software was bundled, which leads one to assume that he was talking about all PC software. Maybe he was talking about Macs, or maybe he was just not clear in what he was saying. But the connontation from the post was that "Office 98" and Windows were preinstalled, and he sold off those licenses after converting to something else (probably Linux and StarOffice). Thus my comment on Office 98 not existing for Windows.
Funny. You tried donating non-existing software? (hint: Office 98 never existed for the Windows platform)
<flamebait>Of course, Australia and the surrounding area is nothing more than an extension of the United Kingdom, and so of course you all use PAL</flamebait>
More seriously, though, I was under the impression that Australia at least used NTSC. I could be wrong. I know NTSC (or a form thereof) is used in Asian countries.
Actually, PAL is 25 "frames per second", or more precisely running at 50Hz interlaced (50 half-frames per second, where three half frames make up two complete frames). NTSC runs at roughly 60Hz interlaced (roughly, because as you pointed out it's just slightly less than 30 "frames per second", and so it would be just slightly less than 60 Hz interlaced), meaning 50 half-frames per second. Now munge those numbers around, and I'm sure you can find some reason why a video in PAL format is dropping frames on an NTSC machine (and since the XBox has not had a European release yet, and the rest of the world uses various forms of NTSC, it's not so surprising the US XBoxes don't have correction for 50Hz->60Hz conversion).
Excellent post! Too many people (RMS included, it seems) forget that software does not just spring into existence at the whim of a user. Most good software comes about from a concerted effort of multiple developers, testers, and designers. These people may or may not work for free, but even when not being paid their time and effort is valuable. You don't have the right to have your car repaired for free, you don't have the right to free legal representation, and you don't have the right to free software. (using the "collective you", here.) If the developer(s) of a piece of software want you to have their software for free, or their source code, or whatever, great. But to insist on that is to overstep your bounds. You might have the right to demand better quality (assuming you paid for the software), or the right to request new features, but you don't have the right to demand the developer's IP for your own use.
Again, great post, and excellent analogy. Now if only I could talk a maid service into working for software ...
This is extremely off-topic, but isn't the point of a comic strip supposed to be that the strip is funny, or has some form of humorous value to it? Does anybody find UF funny? Rehashed, boring, tired old Microsoft jokes, linux pandering, etc.
I won't even bother saying anything about the art, as anything that can be said about it already has been.
Windows 2000/XP also does this natively. It simply doesn't expose per-window control of it through the UI. Each window does have its own alpha level, and it's up to the programmer to decide if s/he wants all windows the same or not. For a good example, check out Lucidamp, a Winamp plugin that allows you to set varying levels of alpha transparency on each of the four main Winamp windows, and also works with the Mikroamp Winamp plugin.
Also, please note that Windows 2000 did this before OS X did this. Not that it matters, but it's true.
First off, Windows 2000 had this before OS X, so your claim that Microsoft only rips off from Apple is off-base. Second, this is more GUI bloat than OS bloat, if it's bloat at all. Windows 2000 and XP tastefully use this alpha blending in subtle ways, such as a barely-noticeable shadow under your mouse pointer, or fading out menu selections (giving you some subtle feedback on what you actually selected, while being tuneable in that you can change the menu speed or simply turn off fading effects). Yes, large windows employing this effect are a bit sluggish, but recent video hardware has 2D acceleration for alpha blending so it's not so bad, and is actually very useful for small windows like Winamp.
As far as a UI being "lean and fast as hell", you'll notice that Microsoft made little use of this effect, and in most places made it optional. I say "most places", because layered windows (Microsoft's term for windows that do some form of alpha blending) are now used instead of the old window regions, and are used with such things as Microsoft Agent (the technology behind the annoying Office Assistants) to bring them "outside the box" of a normal window. Whether or not you choose to use this utility to add alpha blending to all or some of your windows should not reflect at all on Microsoft, who simply chose to add this functionality (which is actually a very nice addition).
There's no "hack" going on here. True alpha blending has been available since the Windows 2000 betas (well, at the very least RC1. I don't recall if it was in NT5 Beta 2, but that was a long time ago). This is just a matter of bookkeeping, really, as the interesting part is trivial.
Sure, but Windows 2000 beat OS X to the punch by nearly a year. Not that it really matters or anything, but if you want a "my OS is better than your OS argument", there you go.
Lucidamp to the rescue (yes, shameless pimpage. but I don't care!). Lucidamp has been applying alpha blending to Winamp for the better part of a year and a half (okay, so the first version sucked). There are others out there that will do this, both in Winamp plugin form (such as Lucidamp) and one-size-fits-all form like Glass2K, but I believe (and I'm biased here) that Lucidamp is the best when dealing only with Winamp.
Applying alpha blending to all windows is not really an interesting problem. There are some hoops to jump through, and you have to be realistic about what you expect, but otherwise it's a simple, straightforward process (don't believe me? This article gives you 90% of what you need to write such a tool. The other 10% is bookkeeping.)
More interesting is applying alpha blending to specific applications. This lets you be much more creative by doing something that complements an application. A translucent Internet Explorer is not interesting or useful (in fact, it's likely a drag on your system, and hard to read). A translucent Winamp, on the other hand, is a match made in heaven. What I'd really like to see is more application developers taking the time to add layered windows to their applications where it's appropriate, rather than taking this one-size-fits-all type of approach. But then, I've been playing with layered windows for a year and a half now, so maybe I'm just not getting the "wow" experience anymore.
Try 16 years. Windows 1.0 was announced in 1985, and released about a year later.
The linux drivers are directly based on the Windows drivers. Sure, the interfaces into the linux kernel vs. interfaces into the win2k kernel are different, but otherwise there's no difference at all (which is also why the linux drivers perform within 1%-2% of the performance of the Windows drivers).
This works on all systems that use cmd.exe as the commandline shell (NT4, Win2K, WinXP). XP actually has a UI that will let you set your file completion character and directory completion character without editing the registry by hand (I still do it the regedit way, simply because it's faster).
Who says you need source to fix problems? In this case, it's as simple as setting a password for th sa user. Anyway, the point is moot because this only affects SQL Server 7 and older. SQL Server 2000 makes you jump through hoops if you want to leave the sa password blank (as well, SQL auth isn't even the default. Instead, Windows domain auth is the default). Anyway, the point here is that source is absolutely not required to fix this problem. Just a small amount of brainpower, that's all.
So where exactly can I pick up DOA3 for my PC? Or Munch's Oddysey? Or Cel Damage, Fuzion Frenzy, Project Gotham Racing, NFL Fever 2002, Amped, and so on? Because the majority of these must be on the PC, right? Oh, wait, they're not. I wonder why ...
So it's the system's fault that the textures are bland? Nevermind that textures are just art, and it's up to the artist to make them look good. Besides, what games were you looking at? (I'll laugh if you say the Munch's Oddysey demo disk, as that is not indicative of the game at all) DOA3 has bright, lively textures and geometry, with many nice subtle touches, like being able to visually tell the difference between cloth types, nice water effects, snow that gets packed down as you walk over it, etc. Fuzion Frenzy is full of dark textures with lots of bright neon light effects and particles. I'll admit Halo is pretty boring graphically -- until you get into the outside world. Then it's astounding. My point? It takes a good artist to make any console look good, regardless of power. Nintendo definitely has them. Microsoft and affiliates also have them.
I hope not, for Nintendo's sake. If this is going to be the case, then expect the GameCube to end up exactly like the N64 -- several Nintendo titles released per year, little from anybody else, and people only buy it for Pokemon or Mario Party. Nintendo has had problems wooing third-party developers lately, and unless they fix that, the Gamecube will not be a contender.
In your opinion, of course. Some of us may not like some of those games. For instance, I thought the N64 versions of Zelda were pretty poorly done (yes, the graphics were pretty, and the control wasn't so bad, but they were boring). And if Metroid goes FPS like it appears to be doing (Metroid Prime), I'll pass on that, too.
Again, in your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that the XBox is quite beautiful, as exemplified by DOA3 and Shrek (Shitty gameplay, awesome graphics). You're right in that the number of polys doesn't matter (well, not too much, though the number of polys does determine how detailed your models are going to be). You happen to like the more childish (not as an insult) art of Nintendo, while I like the art of DOA3, for instance. You play what you want, I'll play what i want. Sweeping generalizations need not apply.
Ah, but it's not a celeron. You'd know this, had you read Anandtech's article yesterday. And while it is an nVidia video card, it's not one you can go out and buy for your PC. Sure, it's somewhere between the GF3 and GF3ti500 in terms of clock and memory speed, but that's ignoring the extra shaders on the card. And it's also ignoring the fact that the XBox IS A CONSOLE. What that means is that it's hardware that won't change for 5+ years. Developers can write directly to that hardware, and do many other programming tricks that they can't do with a PC because they don't know what hardware their game will run on. Yes, it uses some PC hardware. That doesn't make it a PC (if that were the case, then the GameCube is a Macintosh).
And the XBox IS different than the PC, where the games are concerned. While you might find Halo on a PC, you're not going to find Munch's Oddysey, Amped, DOA3, Cel Damage, SSX Trickey, and more. And as far as Halo goes, the XBox isn't the only console to have FPS games on it (nor is it the first). Hell, the old Super Nintendo had a port of Wolf3D. The PS2 has ports of NOLF and Half-Life , among many others. So just because you think that the FPS is the realm of computers doesn't make it so. But rarely will you play a fighting game or party game, for instance, on a PC. Oh, and you might want to go re-price HDTV's. You can get good ones for $2000 or so these days.
And play Halo before you write off the XBox for good. Then again, there's nothing saying you can't have both an XBox and a PS2. or an XBox and a Gamecube, or PS2 and Gamecube, or even all three.
Microsoft said time and again during the development of the XBox that you would be able to use whatever existing broadband ISP you have for internet access for your XBox (this only makes sense, as it would be extremely foolish for Microsoft to try to get into the cable/DSL/dedicated line business more than they already are). Halo was not an online game for quality issues and time constraints. Meaning, there was not enough time to accurately test Halo online and tweak it to run well and also go gold in time for the XBox launch. This isn't going to affect negatively, because
Anyway, as other people have already pointed out, Halo is likely the exception rather than the rule. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some games you could play online for free (look at the MSN Gaming Zone -- the premium content includes games like Crimson Skies that you can play online for free once you've bought the game, and also games like Asheron's Call that require a subscription even after buying the box), but I'm guessing most online games will require a subscription (probably a $10/mo subscription to some premium service that lets you play all your online games, rather than $10/game/mo).
I agree that the XBox has well-known hardware, in the sense that much of it is standard PC components. However, to say that the XBox has pretty much maxed its potential with its launch titles is pretty short-sighted. Sure, DOA3 is freakin' awesome, but even it has room for improvement (I don't know how it could be improved visually, but I'm sure Tecmo will do it). Shrek is a very good example of the bump-mapping and texturing capabilities of the XBox (everything is bumpmapped, with multiple detail textures), but its gameplay isn't quite up to snuff. Halo is awesome, graphically and gameplay-wise, but it could use some work with the Dolby 5.1 audio. And on top of all of that, few developers have actually started using vertex and pixel shaders in PC games, and that's where the real power of the GF3 and XBox comes into play. Being programmable, you can do anything from skinning models with vertex shaders, to vertex shader-based animation, to per-pixel reflection and refraction for perfectly simulated water effects, or cloth effects (you can see some of this already, such as in DOA3 where you can tell the difference between a silk dress and a leather belt, or in NFL Fever 2002 where you can see the satiny sheen on jerseys before they get dirty). As well, no games utilize the XBox's native 2x, 4x, or Quincunx (a sloppy-4x AA, if you will) anti-aliasing, so visual quality can be improved even more still. And non-visually, since the XBox offloads much of the graphics work (all T&L, vertex and pixel shaders), there's more CPU time to do AI, physics, and other gameplay elements.
First, a small nitpick -- the XBox is based on a highly-customized windows 2000 operating system, which doesn't do much more than provide access to the hard drive. It's a very light layer. In fact, it doesn't even do any virtual memory handling, so if you need to swap out the hard disk, you'll have to program that yourself. As far as DX8 goes, it's also been highly customized. Because the hardware isn't going to change, DX8 is now little more than a very thin layer over the graphics hardware. And what's more, developers need not use DX at all. As with the PSX, where Sony originally provided a C API but developers eventually wrote their own assembly routines (thus prompting Sony to not provide a C API for PS2, which caused the bitching and moaning about PS2 being hard to program, and effectively locked smaller dev houses out of the PS2 market), expect XBox developers to create their own in-house libraries for talking directly to the hardware. What DX allows is quick time to market, thus allowing developers to get a game under their belts (and the corresponding money), so that they can spend their time working on in-house libraries for game #2. It also allows for less up-front investments to get into XBox development (through Microsoft's grassroots program, interested developers can get the necessary information to begin development on qualified PCs, and once they obtain a publisher, will get the necessary XBox development hardware. At least one game scheduled for release within the next few months has gone through this process). Small dev houses that can't afford to target the PS2 can target the XBox instead.
Awesome license! I think I might start using that, or at least applying such a clause to any code I write. You made my day.
Actually, RMS is demanding you do just that. For "the good of humanity", or some such bullshit. As for the rest, programmers are no different than lawyers (or any of your other examples). Lawyers may take cases pro bono, and some may do that more often than others. But to expect and assume that any lawyer you speak with will take your case pro bono is to be absurdly naive. It's no different with programmers. Some may choose to write software for free, and give it away (with or without source). Many choose to get paid for their work. Some even do both. But to dictate that programmers should only give away their work (paid or not) is just as naive as expecting a lawyer to take your case pro bono. It's stupid and absurd.
"Right" or "wrong" depends on whether or not you care about your service package or not. When you buy a tivo, you own that tivo. You can hack it all you want. But you may no longer be able to use your service agreement, meaning you'll lose a lot of functionality of your tivo. Trade-offs must be made.
Most people will make the analogy that if you buy a toaster, you can sell it off when you're done. However, with a toaster, you can't keep a copy of it yourself and sell off the original. That's what the licensing clause is aimed at. If you're no longer using your copy of Windows, give it to somebody else. But if you still have it installed, then it's illegal to do so.
If you properly cite your source, you'll have no problems. This has always been legal, as long as you're just quoting and you cite where/who you quoted it from. Now, if you're looking to get published, you may need to get permission from the copyright holder, but only if you use a significant portion of their work in your own (quoting a few lines, or a paragraph or two is just fine, traditionally).
This is bullshit. The creators are the ones expending time, money, and effort to bring you a product (piece of hardware, software, a book, whatever). Therefore, they should be allowed to distribute that product however they please. If they wanted, they could have a license that requires you to send them a nude pic of yourself (if you're female) or your girlfriend/wife/sister (if you're not female) in exchange for their product. Few people would use what they're providing, but that's not the point. The point is that the ones behind the creative effort have that right. The only right you have as a user is the choice of using that person's product (and thus, following the license on penalty of potential legal action), or not. What RMS is saying is that the users should have more rights than that, but RMS is somewhat of an idealist and doesn't undestand how the world works.