People who spend $500 for a new video card tend to know that you need a decent motherboard and CPU in addition to the video card. That's where the real cost comes in for many high end machines. An Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for example isn't exactly a cheap processor.
The people who really waste their money are the ones who buy TWO $500 video cardsfor SLI/Crossfire, yet only have a 19 inch monitor that at most does 1280x1024.
The issue with the whole Apple platform is that without the cost of a good video card, you end up spending a lot on the system with graphics that arn't all that fantastic. So if you want to play games, you end up spending the money on the video card anyway, but have paid more for the base computer than you would for a decent PC.
It really comes down to how detailed the violence is. Violence isn't the thing that is being focused on, it's going into detail when it comes to violence.
A game where you go around shooting other people may not fall under this sort of law. If the visual details of the bullet entering the other person, with realistic blood and body parts are added, or the enactment of violent crimes are done in a detailed way, then those DO fall under this type of law.
The problem comes down to games where the player is in control of a criminal. Law makers do NOT want to see things that encourage violent behavior. Grand Theft Auto is all about being a criminal, so is a target for all sorts of laws. A similar game where the player STOPS those criminals would be supported. This can be extended to other forms of entertainment. When unlawful behavior is shown as being fun with no negatives, it's going to become the target of lawsuits. Show the same thing but with all the negatives showing why you shouldn't act that way, and you will avoid problems.
Just because there is the suggestion of violence doesn't mean that it will be the target of these laws.
I've said it before and I will say it again. The connection between violent video games and violent behavior isn't there in normal people, it's there in people who are borderline psychotic to begin with.
A sane person(teenager or adult), can seperate between TV, video games, and reality. But what about the people out there who have a problem seperating fantasy from reality? The only way to do things properly is to focus on discovering those with mental health issues EARLY, so that those who have mental disorders arn't playing violent video games.
What I find funny is that no one has mentioned availability when they compare AMD to Intel.
Can you buy the latest from either AMD or Intel at this point? If I can't find a processor on sites like pricewatch and pricegrabber, then from my perspective it's not available for purchase.
So, the big question you should all be asking is when we will see the Athlon FX60 or the Pentium 955EE available for sale.
If there are only enough processors available to ship out to review sites, but not enough to sell in volume, then it's just a paper launch. My own feeling is that we will see the FX60 available sooner than the 955EE. Selling through only one vendor(such as Dell) doesn't mean it's available because Dell will only sell the new chips in systems and not for individual sales.
It sounds like you didn't play Civ 4, because it's a HUGE step forward for the series. It may still be a Civ game, but it's not a simple rehash of previous games in the series.
Civ 4 did suffer from some bugs that affected a decent number of people, and as a result it hurt sales. Note that the game is still doing decently, and it's better than most sequels.
I see a lot of people who continue to say that it's up to the parents to keep their children from playing games that arn't acceptable. These are the same people who either don't work, or who don't have children themselves.
Look at the cost of living these days. In many places, paying rent or a mortgage costs over $2000 per month. With phone bills, cable bills, electric bills, water bills, car payments, credit card payments, and so on, in order to afford all of this and have a parent able to stay at home to watch the kids, the parent that is working would need to be earning at least $80,000/year in order to stay on top of it all. Considering that most people are working in jobs that pay $45,000/year or under, it's no wonder that families need to have BOTH parents working in order to stay on top of costs. Oh, I forgot that with a child, it's idiotic not to have health insurance, and MOST jobs out there don't provide health insurance as a part of the job.
Until the overall cost of living is reduced, there will be NO chance for many families to have someone stay at home to watch what children are playing and doing. I don't see a push by government to help REDUCE costs. Gas prices are up which raises the prices on everything. Electric costs are going up and up with nothing being done to lower the prices. Preventing prices from going up isn't the same as lowering them.
The economy isn't in good shape right now. Consider that while prices arn't going up TOO fast(except for gas and the side effect of gas prices), people arn't getting paid much more each year. That's a problem. If you make $25,000/year, and prices go up by 5% across the board, but your paycheck only goes up by 3%, you have had life become much harder. If a family has a single income of $45,000/year, but rents and utility bills go up more per year than your income, you have less of a chance of doing well overall. Taxes are also going up in many places, so if you managed to buy a house and could BARELY afford the payments, the increase in taxes will force you to move out eventually because wages arn't increasing.
These are just some of the facts that involve the whole "parents should watch what their children are doing". If children get out of school three to four hours before a parent gets home from work, of COURSE there won't be anyone there to watch what they are doing, they are too busy trying to earn a living. Only the wealthy who don't work, or those who can work at home can possibly watch their children properly.
What developers don't think about
on
Size Does Matter
·
· Score: 1
One thing that companies like EA fail to do is to look at the market and look for places where there is a demand but no product to fill that demand. It's a fairly simple concept that EA and other companies fail to understand.
In the movie industry, they do this ALL the time, and it's why you will see cycles of the types of movies. Some years you have a bunch of sequels, in other years you have movies from a given genre show up a LOT(disaster films, fantasy movies, superheros, and the list goes on).
There has been a shortage of adventure games since Sierra got bought out by VU Games for example, but there has been so much focus on games that people can play mindlessly for months on end that adventure games have mostly disappeared from the mainstream.
Fantasy adventure has a lot of room, yet we see very little development of NEW worlds because creativity has been bleeding out of the US game developer market. It's not gone completely, but here in the USA, we don't see a lot of innovation. Games developed in Asia don't generally catch on over here because of cultural differences.
Developers like Bioware continue to develop good titles that sell well because people are starved for storyline in games. What many people really want are interactive movies where they are in control of the main character. For shooters, people take the role of the main character, and have fun running around shooting people. In fantasy RPGs, people tend to want to either be a figure for good, evil, or someone who can manipulate situations from the shadows, not being one extreme or the other.
Developers in general don't understand why they don't get as many women playing games, but they don't look to other areas. The old Sierra adventures worked toward that end by avoiding the violence and the "I don't like what you are saying so I'll just kill you" approach of so many games out there. The Gabriel Knight games were mostly an interactive mystery novel which a LOT of people enjoyed playing.
Now, EA HAS figured out one thing, but they don't seem to understand it. If you have a good game engine, and can use it in a new program, you reduce the cost of development for each new title and you can make a fortune. It's why the sports games make them so much money, it's the same engine over and over again. If EA and other developers can focus on a GOOD game engine that is open enough to be re-used in other games, not just in sequels of the first game to use it, the developer can reduce costs enough to make an amazing game. Bioware did it with the Infinity engine which they developed for the original Baldur's Gate. It didn't make it to games outside the AD&D themed ones, but it COULD have been used in many more games. The Aurora engine hasn't been used by other games, and as a result didn't help on costs, so Neverwinter Nights didn't end up making Bioware as much money from the development. Keep in mind that the reason Baldur's Gate 2 did so well was because it really was almost epic in scope. It used an updated version of the Infinity engine. As a result, the game was fairly large. If the engine had to be written from scratch, the game would have been a LOT shorter, had fewer features, and wouldn't have been so popular.
Oh, I'm very aware of what's going on with overclocking, but until AMD releases it at the higher speed ratings, it's not an official speed. Opteron is primarily a server/workstation chip where stability is key. We may all know that Opteron and Athlon 64(including the X2 line) can be clocked higher, but we need to go by official released speed grades. If AMD doesn't sell the chips at the speeds we know they will run at, then from the point of reviews and the press, Intel is catching up.
It's really about advertised available speeds here. Intel generates a LOT of hype. AMD needs to stay well ahead in terms of performance to keep Intel where they are. If AMD is only selling "2.4GHz X2" processors, even if they can be overclocked to 2.7GHz or 2.8GHz, the mainstream will go by the official numbers. That will slow down adoption of AMD chips into the corporate world.
But, time will tell. If AMD can get the 65nm versions produced in volume by March, then by June, AMD could have a large supply of the newer and faster processors ready to ship in large volumes. Picture Intel's reaction if AMD suddenly starts selling 3.2GHz air cooled Athlon 64 single and dual core chips as early as July in large numbers.
Of course, the move to Intel processors by Apple will hurt compatability and performance of current software that runs on Apple computers. As a result, you will probably need to replace every application you own with a new Intel supporting version in order to avoid losing performance.
One thing about performance comparisons is that you have to look at what's available, not just about what looks best on paper. For laptops, Apple never had a G5 based laptop because there was no such thing. So doing a comparison between laptops, the current Powerbook line may and probably does run slower than what's available on the PC side of things. When you compare desktop machines to each other, it's not about "specs" since we are looking at different architectures, but instead needs to be properly benchmarked by fair comparisons.
We have seen a PRELIMINARY benchmark of the Yonah and how it performs compared to X2 based machines, but how well things run in the real world remains to be seen. Doing a comparison of something that is only available in an engineering sample is just that, a preview of the state of the technology. Who knows how well or poorly the release version will operate.
We also need to wonder about paper launches for some of these things. Remember the Extreme Edition versions of the Pentium 4 which may have been available in limited numbers, but wern't really broadly available. Both ATI and NVIDIA have been guilty over the years of paper launching products, and both have gotten their share of negative press as a result. Intel has never been properly slammed when they paper launch a product by the general press. AMD has been slammed when there is a real launch but with a limited supply of processors.
So, Intel looks like they are a bit more competitive than they have been overall, but they may very well have given up the strengths that let the P4 dominate in a few areas but lose overall in order to provide a better overall competitor. How well things scale is also something to be seen, which seems to be the feeling of many people, not just the AMD fanboi crowd. If AMD can crank up the speed of dual core processors to the 2.8GHz per core level or above, Intel will have a hard time of it on the desktop. If AMD can get the 65nm parts out, the laptop market may also go to AMD in most areas.
One thing about this laptop that many people havn't mentioned is the small screen size. A nice 15.4 inch display would draw more power and might not be as attractive due to shorter battery life. It's something to consider.
Microsoft licenses based on how many processors, not how many cores there are. So even though we are talking about a dual-core CPU, it's still a single CPU and Windows XP home will support it.
Windows XP Pro would support two dual core chips(these days), and would support two quad core processors as well. XP Home should in theory support a single quad core processor.
The Microsoft official stance is that they will not penalize the enthusiasts who want to use the high end parts.
I wouldn't be sure about the "people don't want a tower" being the reason for so many laptops being sold. My own thought is that college students are expected to have a computer now. It used to be that only a few people had their own computer, so colleges didn't expect or require students to own one. These days, that has changed and it's now expected for pretty much every student to have a computer.
Now, if a family doesn't have a computer(I know it may seem strange to many of you, but not every home has a computer), and they need to send their child or children to college, they will probably buy a laptop. For those who don't need to bring their work home with them, for the price difference, a desktop computer is prefered by many.
Computer sales also come in cycles, not just quarter to quarter, but from year to year. Generally, a computer is upgraded(or should be), once every four years or so. As a result, this year may have been the upgrade year for college students. Next year, it may cycle back to desktop sales being on top.
There's no question that computers in general are more common than they used to be. A thing to keep in mind is that for those who live in small apartments, a laptop may be the best bet, so that may be the reason for the current trend.
There is another piece of information that is a bit flawed though. When you say "notebook sales exceeded PC sales", that applies only to OEM sales and doesn't include computers that arn't built by the large OEMs. If I build a computer for a customer, it doesn't get counted while almost every laptop sold is counted. It's possible that the number of people who are building their own computers and those who buy custom built machines more than make up for the difference in reported numbers of laptop vs. desktop sales.
As for moving, I don't know ANYONE who takes that into account except those who are just getting out of college and havn't settled into a job yet. Moving a computer for most people as a part of moving isn't seen as any worse than moving a TV, home stereo/theater system, or any other item. Remember, no one enjoys moving. Unless you expect to be kicked out of your home/apartment, that's not going to impact your decision on desktop vs. laptop.
The sample Anandtech had ran at 2.0 GHz and couldn't overclock very far. It's clock speed matches the LOW end of the Athlon 64 X2 line, and doesn't match the performance of all the X2s. From Anandtech's benchmarks, Yonah didn't beat the X2 in game benchmarks, and it's so close as far as the other benchmarks that it's not a huge win for Intel when compared to the X2 3800+.
From this, Intel has almost but not quite caught up to AMD's performance. If AMD can release 65nm versions of the X2 by July and can manufacture them decently, Intel will be back to playing catch-up. Just because AMD isn't planning a major change to the design of their chips doesn't mean they arn't going to be rolling out versions of current chips on the 65nm process which will let them compete well with the Yonah laptop they are talking about here.
So, I'll give credit to Intel, they have mostly caught up for now, but it remains to be seen if they can hold on to their current position as being CLOSE in performance to AMD's processors.
It's possible that Microsoft didn't expect quite as much of a demand as they have seen, but didn't want to admit it. If you look at the game lineup for the 360, it's ok, but not amazing. There arn't any real "must have" games for it in my opinion. The compatability with the original Xbox titles isn't perfect, and it will take a while before all of the really great game titles will run properly on the 360.
So, with this in mind, it's possible that Microsoft expected high demand for the holidays, but not quite as much as they found from the initial launch. No Microsoft exec would EVER say that they didn't expect their newest product to sell out on launch, but they might have thought it going into the launch.
Production issues due to the power supply overheat problem may also play a role in the limited amounts of 360 consoles we have seen until recently.
The original PC had 640x200 graphics, with some unusual modes that provided for more colors at yet lower resolutions. The jump to EGA(640x350) and even 640x480 were minor because initially these resolutions didn't add more color depth. It took until SVGA to give us a taste of the good quality graphics we have today on the PC.
Now, on the PC it's fairly common to have people running in 1280x1024 mode. 1600x1200 resolution is possible for most people, but due to screen size and limited UI scaling in applications, it's difficult for those who use the UI to run at 1600x1200 on a 19 inch screen because the on-screen controls become too small in many cases.
In comparison to normal TV, 1024x768 is high definition. It may not be the same thing as "HD" since HD in this case refers to a television display, but it's up there. 1600x1200 of course would seem like ultra high definition in comparison then.
So, for consoles, the big thing is that they now are pushing into higher resolutions than they had access to before. PC games have had this level for ages now. It's just that consoles are finally starting to show up. If we compare Oblivion for the PC and for the Xbox 360, I'm sure the PC version will still look quite a bit better, even if there may be some bugs on some machines due to hardware differences between machines that you don't see on a console.
But, think about this, a game with poor gameplay won't be improved just by the move to higher resolutions. A boring game wil still be boring. A game may have amazing cinematic effects and scenery, and cut scenes, but just moving to a higher resolution won't make a bad game good.
The game engine and code are probably still worth something to Turbine. Keep in mind that even if AC2 is dead, a bit of the code may have been used in Dungeons and Dragons Online for all we know.
The only time when source code will be released is if the rights to the game arn't sold and the developer is about to go under. Freespace 2 had it's source code released, but it's one of the few GOOD games where the source was released. I really wish that there had been a Freespace 3 because both Freespace 1 and 2 kicked some serious ass.
An issue is that due to the lack of a Windows XP CD and driver CD, the ONLY way to recover from some problems that were caused while troubleshooting the machine was to restore back to factory conditions(the ctrl-F11 routine). It ends up forcing the user to go back to factory conditions for ANYTHING.
My own complaint which was never addressed in the original article is that if you need to use the recovery CDs(which are NORMALLY included), since the machine is SATA based, you have NO way to restore. No floppy drive=no way to install the SATA drivers from the CD(which are in a self extracting EXE anyway). So, you can't use a recovery CD, you can't partition the hard drive, format the drive, or anything needed to get back up and running anyway. That's a BIG issue that I have with Dell and Microsoft at this point. Couldn't Microsoft have provided CD access in their damn installer to install SCSI drivers? Why floppy-only?
If you want a choice in what goes into your computer, then you also end up with difficulty for application developers. What works on an ATI video card may not work on a NVIDIA based video card. Want to play a game on a video card that's 4 years old? That adds more complexity to the design and testing of a game.
As the complexity of a game increases, the more chance there is of a bug being introduced that will get noticed. It's not a function of the quality as much as too many different combinations of equipment. In some cases, there are conflicts between a motherboard and video card that only show up in very rare situations that MAY show up only with a specific game and the way the game is coded. Unless you expect that every game developer out there sets up several THOUSAND systems for QA with all the different motherboards, video cards, and operating systems out there, it's IMPOSSIBLE to catch every bug. Also, since the video and sound card drivers change fairly often, what works in testing may not work.
As for controllers, have you seen a mouse and keyboard that will work with an Xbox 360? Think they would allow too many different input devices to be made for it and force developers to support all the different possible input devices? Do you think ANY console developer would allow for different specs for their consoles?
The reason console games generally have very good quality control is because there is NO variation in a console. Patches, and mods, expansion packs and user-made additions to games are a GOOD thing. We all wish that games on the PC would have zero bugs, but you need to be realistic. If every game that comes out for a console were expected to run well on the previous generation console, you'd see a lot of problems too if the consoles were supposed to be fully compatable.
There are a lot of reasons for playing games on a PC instead of on a console.
For starters, you can generally run at a higher resolution with higher video quality on a PC when compared to a console. Even HD for a display doesn't give the video quality of a cheap monitor. You can turn on Anti-Aliasing to improve the video quality as well.
You can upgrade and choose the level of the system you want. You arn't stuck with a single configuration, you can choose to start with a very low end machine and work your way upward from there.
Mods, short for modifications are available for many games now. I'm not talking about things like "nude patches", but instead, good solid additions to a game, or changes to improve a game. If there is a problem with a game, in many cases a fix can be gotten.
Expansions don't need to include the full original game. As a result, expansions will be cheaper compared to buying the original game all over again with each expansion.
Controls and interface tend to offer more complexity on a PC compared to a console. Yes, there are cases where a controller will be a better choice, but in many cases, having a full keyboard available for controls will help make a game less complicated. No need for "left thumb while holding the B button and then hitting A to make a special combination" if you have a keyboard which has keys mapped to these type of moves.
There are more types of games out there besides action games. I know it's shocking, but there are a lot of people out there who prefer strategy or adventure games. Try playing a game like civilization 4 and you will see that having a keyboard makes the game a lot easier than some console game controller. Flight simulators also have a LOT of controls, and as a result, having a lot of keys for all these different controls really does make a game more playable. The list goes on.
These are just a few of the reasons to go with a PC for games. If you look at the price of game consoles these days, you should know that the Xbox 360 will cost you $300 or more depending on which features come with your console. With these prices, a computer that costs $700 and can do work, allow you to chat with friends, do research, browse the web, and so on really isn't a horrible price to pay.
If you enjoy consoles, that's fine, but if you compare some games available on both the PC and console, you might be amazed that the PC is a better platform for many games. Just don't think that a game that came out on a console then got released on a PC is an indication of what a true PC game can do. Also don't try to compare how things are on a $400 computer to a $400 console because it's not a fair comparison unless you have a choice in what to get for your child. A top of the line console costs $400, a top of the line computer can cost over $2000 for a complete system, and a BOTTOM of the line computer costs $400. A $1000 computer(including monitor) can compare well to a $400 console, yet provides a lot more functionality.
The real benefit is in bringing more operating capitol into the company. A nice thing is that if the owners set up the IPO properly, the owners can still hold on to a majority share no matter what else happens. It's not as simple as saying "This company is now entirely owned by the stockholders". If as a part of the initial filing, the current management is granted 75 percent of the company for example, then the public shares are only worth 25 percent of the company.
It's true that going public will generally lead to a lot of money going into the pockets of the upper management, but in a good company, that upper management will feed money back into the company to help it if needed.
Now, going forward, with all of the in-game advertising we are seeing these days, going public MAY help improve the prices that can be charged for in-game advertising, or even for web site revenues via advertising. With consoles, being a more recognized company may also help with contracts for console titles, though I don't see how a console manufacturer could ignore a Bioware developed title, the new joint entity doesn't have the name recognition yet.
Considering how much research has gone into research on primates, it's almost funny that it's taken researchers this long to come up with this conclusion. Full grown chimps compared to human children. Ok, so a fully developed chimp is better at some things than a human child. Children need time to grow up. If a young chimp were to beat a human child, THEN there would be something interesting to report.
A gorilla is stronger than just about any human out there. An ape can fall from a much higher distance than a human without getting seriously hurt. The list of things goes on where humans arn't necessarily the best at everything. When it comes to brain development, it may take a bit of time for a human to develop, but look at the differences between an adult of each species, not between adults and children of different species.
There are really two seperate VOIP markets out there right now. The one that is mentioned here is the software version that goes through the computer of the user. Software based VOIP has been around for a long time now, but is limited in many ways.
VOIP also has the "phone line replacement" type, such as Vonage, Optimum Voice(Cablevision's VOIP service), and others that let you use the service using a regular telephone that is plugged into a cable modem, router, or telephone adapter which makes your current broadband connection into a replacement for your local phone company.
Software that lets people talk through the computer tends to be cheap, but has it's limitations(such as not being able to use a regular cordless phone and walk around while talking). Don't confuse the two because software based VOIP is no substitute for the other type.
The thing is that we arn't seeing games re-released for the new consoles with the higher polygon count though. We only see the higher resolution textures without the other stuff that would make a "new port" seem like a good improvement.
Considering that games on the PC tend to be intended to run at 1024x768 or above(1280x1024 or 1600x1200 are very common), that's the video level people want to see from a HD title. I don't think we will see this quality video for quite a while yet. Improved textures are easy enough to implement, but that doesn't mean that the graphics or feel of a game has improved much.
Now, companies CAN prepare well in advance for next generation computers and equipment by developing well beyond the current abilities of the consoles. Make it so the models use 5 million polygons each in the design of the game. Who cares that the game runs at 3 frames per second on current equipment. Then the developer can scale down the number of polygons in order to make it run on the target system. Rebuild for the next console, and porting will at least provide the graphics improvements people look for. A game like Jade Empire could be re-released with an XBOX 360 version with improved graphics if the original game was intended to be that much better than the original Xbox could handle.
A part of the problem is that Christians tend to think that they are different from those who follow other religions when it comes to "ideal" behavior.
EVERY major religion has a similar outward attitude when it comes to their followers. That attitude is to help people become better human beings. It doesn't matter if you are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc... The key is to try to be a better person. Help others who need help, try to stop yourself from doing bad things, and so on. Why is it that people see Christians as the most concerned about the problems in the world around us?
EVERYONE is concerned about violence in video games being seen as acceptable while a little nudity is horrible. The thing is how rational people will be when it comes to dealing with the problem.
So, back to the topic of the thread....
The ESRB really didn't make a mistake when they set the original M rating on GTA. The game itself didn't have the AO material available unless you hacked the game code to unlock Hot Coffee. Unless you expect the ESRB to spend time hacking every game title to see what was deleted at the last minute, you couldn't expect them to look for removed features/scenes. Once the issue was brought to their attention, they acted on the information.
For those confused about the difference between M and AO for the one year age difference between them, consider that we have R rated movies(ages 17 and up unless in the company of a parent or guardian), NC-17(you need to be 17 or older regardless of if a parent is there), and X(21 and up).
So, AO then could be set to be 21+ instead of 18+ I suppose.
A problem that I see is that there isn't really enough common sense out there in the game industry. You see virtually no nudity in games that are rated M, which puts in a huge gap in content for those who are 18 and over. PG-13 movies will sometimes have more nudity than we see in M rated titles. It's a part of the differences between the movie industry and game industry. Games are getting closer and closer to being considered a part of the entertainment industry as a whole, but there are too many conceptual differences there right now to bridge the gap. Christian groups don't say much these days about movies having mature themes in PG-13 movies yet they flip out if there's even a hint of sexuality or violence in a game.
In the mid '90s, many people would get out of college and take an entry level IT or tech support job as their entry-level job. There were plenty of start-ups, not just in the San Francisco Bay area, but all around the country. It wasn't hype, or a bubble, it was a sudden recognition that computers were the direction things were going in. As a result, there were plenty of jobs to be found in most areas of the country where technology use was expanding.
The new companies that were founded were the source of many of the tech jobs that were out there. The problem is that after the.com crash in the stock market(which was seperate from the crash in the overall tech sector itself), the venture capitol money went away, including money that would be needed for GOOD ideas. Many of the smaller companies, both with great ideas and products, and those without a product that were started as a result of the hype, went under due to a sudden reduction in customers. Remember that many companies made and sold products for use by other companies, not just trying to sell to end-users.
With the reduction in the number of companies came the natural reduction in the number of IT positions. With the reduction in IT positions came the reduction in spending on technology, in addition to the loss because people who work with computers spend money on computers for themselves, not just their companies.
In order for IT to recover, we don't need to return to the days prior to the.com crash, we need to convince companies that use computers and pay contractors to hire people for full-time positions. Here on Long Island, it seems that there is a higher than normal reliance on contractors. Instead of paying someone $40,000/year to be at the company fixing problems, many companies end up spending $40,000/year to have someone come in from the outside to come in on demand. The result is a smaller number of IT jobs. Note that a contractor can come in and get paid $40,000/year by more than one company because that contractor can do work for multiple companies, and gets paid more per hour than a regular employee.
There is plenty of work out there for those in IT, the problem is to make companies realize that having someone on-staff to keep things running well is better than waiting for things to break before bringing someone in. If people didn't change the oil in their car/SUV/truck, they would end up paying more in repairs than it costs to get regular maintenance. It's too bad that many companies don't seem to understand the similarities.
Slashdot Mirror
People who spend $500 for a new video card tend to know that you need a decent motherboard and CPU in addition to the video card. That's where the real cost comes in for many high end machines. An Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for example isn't exactly a cheap processor.
The people who really waste their money are the ones who buy TWO $500 video cardsfor SLI/Crossfire, yet only have a 19 inch monitor that at most does 1280x1024.
The issue with the whole Apple platform is that without the cost of a good video card, you end up spending a lot on the system with graphics that arn't all that fantastic. So if you want to play games, you end up spending the money on the video card anyway, but have paid more for the base computer than you would for a decent PC.
It really comes down to how detailed the violence is. Violence isn't the thing that is being focused on, it's going into detail when it comes to violence.
A game where you go around shooting other people may not fall under this sort of law. If the visual details of the bullet entering the other person, with realistic blood and body parts are added, or the enactment of violent crimes are done in a detailed way, then those DO fall under this type of law.
The problem comes down to games where the player is in control of a criminal. Law makers do NOT want to see things that encourage violent behavior. Grand Theft Auto is all about being a criminal, so is a target for all sorts of laws. A similar game where the player STOPS those criminals would be supported. This can be extended to other forms of entertainment. When unlawful behavior is shown as being fun with no negatives, it's going to become the target of lawsuits. Show the same thing but with all the negatives showing why you shouldn't act that way, and you will avoid problems.
Just because there is the suggestion of violence doesn't mean that it will be the target of these laws.
I've said it before and I will say it again. The connection between violent video games and violent behavior isn't there in normal people, it's there in people who are borderline psychotic to begin with.
A sane person(teenager or adult), can seperate between TV, video games, and reality. But what about the people out there who have a problem seperating fantasy from reality? The only way to do things properly is to focus on discovering those with mental health issues EARLY, so that those who have mental disorders arn't playing violent video games.
What I find funny is that no one has mentioned availability when they compare AMD to Intel.
Can you buy the latest from either AMD or Intel at this point? If I can't find a processor on sites like pricewatch and pricegrabber, then from my perspective it's not available for purchase.
So, the big question you should all be asking is when we will see the Athlon FX60 or the Pentium 955EE available for sale.
If there are only enough processors available to ship out to review sites, but not enough to sell in volume, then it's just a paper launch. My own feeling is that we will see the FX60 available sooner than the 955EE. Selling through only one vendor(such as Dell) doesn't mean it's available because Dell will only sell the new chips in systems and not for individual sales.
It sounds like you didn't play Civ 4, because it's a HUGE step forward for the series. It may still be a Civ game, but it's not a simple rehash of previous games in the series.
Civ 4 did suffer from some bugs that affected a decent number of people, and as a result it hurt sales. Note that the game is still doing decently, and it's better than most sequels.
I see a lot of people who continue to say that it's up to the parents to keep their children from playing games that arn't acceptable. These are the same people who either don't work, or who don't have children themselves.
Look at the cost of living these days. In many places, paying rent or a mortgage costs over $2000 per month. With phone bills, cable bills, electric bills, water bills, car payments, credit card payments, and so on, in order to afford all of this and have a parent able to stay at home to watch the kids, the parent that is working would need to be earning at least $80,000/year in order to stay on top of it all. Considering that most people are working in jobs that pay $45,000/year or under, it's no wonder that families need to have BOTH parents working in order to stay on top of costs. Oh, I forgot that with a child, it's idiotic not to have health insurance, and MOST jobs out there don't provide health insurance as a part of the job.
Until the overall cost of living is reduced, there will be NO chance for many families to have someone stay at home to watch what children are playing and doing. I don't see a push by government to help REDUCE costs. Gas prices are up which raises the prices on everything. Electric costs are going up and up with nothing being done to lower the prices. Preventing prices from going up isn't the same as lowering them.
The economy isn't in good shape right now. Consider that while prices arn't going up TOO fast(except for gas and the side effect of gas prices), people arn't getting paid much more each year. That's a problem. If you make $25,000/year, and prices go up by 5% across the board, but your paycheck only goes up by 3%, you have had life become much harder. If a family has a single income of $45,000/year, but rents and utility bills go up more per year than your income, you have less of a chance of doing well overall. Taxes are also going up in many places, so if you managed to buy a house and could BARELY afford the payments, the increase in taxes will force you to move out eventually because wages arn't increasing.
These are just some of the facts that involve the whole "parents should watch what their children are doing". If children get out of school three to four hours before a parent gets home from work, of COURSE there won't be anyone there to watch what they are doing, they are too busy trying to earn a living. Only the wealthy who don't work, or those who can work at home can possibly watch their children properly.
One thing that companies like EA fail to do is to look at the market and look for places where there is a demand but no product to fill that demand. It's a fairly simple concept that EA and other companies fail to understand.
In the movie industry, they do this ALL the time, and it's why you will see cycles of the types of movies. Some years you have a bunch of sequels, in other years you have movies from a given genre show up a LOT(disaster films, fantasy movies, superheros, and the list goes on).
There has been a shortage of adventure games since Sierra got bought out by VU Games for example, but there has been so much focus on games that people can play mindlessly for months on end that adventure games have mostly disappeared from the mainstream.
Fantasy adventure has a lot of room, yet we see very little development of NEW worlds because creativity has been bleeding out of the US game developer market. It's not gone completely, but here in the USA, we don't see a lot of innovation. Games developed in Asia don't generally catch on over here because of cultural differences.
Developers like Bioware continue to develop good titles that sell well because people are starved for storyline in games. What many people really want are interactive movies where they are in control of the main character. For shooters, people take the role of the main character, and have fun running around shooting people. In fantasy RPGs, people tend to want to either be a figure for good, evil, or someone who can manipulate situations from the shadows, not being one extreme or the other.
Developers in general don't understand why they don't get as many women playing games, but they don't look to other areas. The old Sierra adventures worked toward that end by avoiding the violence and the "I don't like what you are saying so I'll just kill you" approach of so many games out there. The Gabriel Knight games were mostly an interactive mystery novel which a LOT of people enjoyed playing.
Now, EA HAS figured out one thing, but they don't seem to understand it. If you have a good game engine, and can use it in a new program, you reduce the cost of development for each new title and you can make a fortune. It's why the sports games make them so much money, it's the same engine over and over again. If EA and other developers can focus on a GOOD game engine that is open enough to be re-used in other games, not just in sequels of the first game to use it, the developer can reduce costs enough to make an amazing game. Bioware did it with the Infinity engine which they developed for the original Baldur's Gate. It didn't make it to games outside the AD&D themed ones, but it COULD have been used in many more games. The Aurora engine hasn't been used by other games, and as a result didn't help on costs, so Neverwinter Nights didn't end up making Bioware as much money from the development. Keep in mind that the reason Baldur's Gate 2 did so well was because it really was almost epic in scope. It used an updated version of the Infinity engine. As a result, the game was fairly large. If the engine had to be written from scratch, the game would have been a LOT shorter, had fewer features, and wouldn't have been so popular.
Oh, I'm very aware of what's going on with overclocking, but until AMD releases it at the higher speed ratings, it's not an official speed. Opteron is primarily a server/workstation chip where stability is key. We may all know that Opteron and Athlon 64(including the X2 line) can be clocked higher, but we need to go by official released speed grades. If AMD doesn't sell the chips at the speeds we know they will run at, then from the point of reviews and the press, Intel is catching up.
It's really about advertised available speeds here. Intel generates a LOT of hype. AMD needs to stay well ahead in terms of performance to keep Intel where they are. If AMD is only selling "2.4GHz X2" processors, even if they can be overclocked to 2.7GHz or 2.8GHz, the mainstream will go by the official numbers. That will slow down adoption of AMD chips into the corporate world.
But, time will tell. If AMD can get the 65nm versions produced in volume by March, then by June, AMD could have a large supply of the newer and faster processors ready to ship in large volumes. Picture Intel's reaction if AMD suddenly starts selling 3.2GHz air cooled Athlon 64 single and dual core chips as early as July in large numbers.
Of course, the move to Intel processors by Apple will hurt compatability and performance of current software that runs on Apple computers. As a result, you will probably need to replace every application you own with a new Intel supporting version in order to avoid losing performance.
One thing about performance comparisons is that you have to look at what's available, not just about what looks best on paper. For laptops, Apple never had a G5 based laptop because there was no such thing. So doing a comparison between laptops, the current Powerbook line may and probably does run slower than what's available on the PC side of things. When you compare desktop machines to each other, it's not about "specs" since we are looking at different architectures, but instead needs to be properly benchmarked by fair comparisons.
We have seen a PRELIMINARY benchmark of the Yonah and how it performs compared to X2 based machines, but how well things run in the real world remains to be seen. Doing a comparison of something that is only available in an engineering sample is just that, a preview of the state of the technology. Who knows how well or poorly the release version will operate.
We also need to wonder about paper launches for some of these things. Remember the Extreme Edition versions of the Pentium 4 which may have been available in limited numbers, but wern't really broadly available. Both ATI and NVIDIA have been guilty over the years of paper launching products, and both have gotten their share of negative press as a result. Intel has never been properly slammed when they paper launch a product by the general press. AMD has been slammed when there is a real launch but with a limited supply of processors.
So, Intel looks like they are a bit more competitive than they have been overall, but they may very well have given up the strengths that let the P4 dominate in a few areas but lose overall in order to provide a better overall competitor. How well things scale is also something to be seen, which seems to be the feeling of many people, not just the AMD fanboi crowd. If AMD can crank up the speed of dual core processors to the 2.8GHz per core level or above, Intel will have a hard time of it on the desktop. If AMD can get the 65nm parts out, the laptop market may also go to AMD in most areas.
One thing about this laptop that many people havn't mentioned is the small screen size. A nice 15.4 inch display would draw more power and might not be as attractive due to shorter battery life. It's something to consider.
Microsoft licenses based on how many processors, not how many cores there are. So even though we are talking about a dual-core CPU, it's still a single CPU and Windows XP home will support it.
Windows XP Pro would support two dual core chips(these days), and would support two quad core processors as well. XP Home should in theory support a single quad core processor.
The Microsoft official stance is that they will not penalize the enthusiasts who want to use the high end parts.
I wouldn't be sure about the "people don't want a tower" being the reason for so many laptops being sold. My own thought is that college students are expected to have a computer now. It used to be that only a few people had their own computer, so colleges didn't expect or require students to own one. These days, that has changed and it's now expected for pretty much every student to have a computer.
Now, if a family doesn't have a computer(I know it may seem strange to many of you, but not every home has a computer), and they need to send their child or children to college, they will probably buy a laptop. For those who don't need to bring their work home with them, for the price difference, a desktop computer is prefered by many.
Computer sales also come in cycles, not just quarter to quarter, but from year to year. Generally, a computer is upgraded(or should be), once every four years or so. As a result, this year may have been the upgrade year for college students. Next year, it may cycle back to desktop sales being on top.
There's no question that computers in general are more common than they used to be. A thing to keep in mind is that for those who live in small apartments, a laptop may be the best bet, so that may be the reason for the current trend.
There is another piece of information that is a bit flawed though. When you say "notebook sales exceeded PC sales", that applies only to OEM sales and doesn't include computers that arn't built by the large OEMs. If I build a computer for a customer, it doesn't get counted while almost every laptop sold is counted. It's possible that the number of people who are building their own computers and those who buy custom built machines more than make up for the difference in reported numbers of laptop vs. desktop sales.
As for moving, I don't know ANYONE who takes that into account except those who are just getting out of college and havn't settled into a job yet. Moving a computer for most people as a part of moving isn't seen as any worse than moving a TV, home stereo/theater system, or any other item. Remember, no one enjoys moving. Unless you expect to be kicked out of your home/apartment, that's not going to impact your decision on desktop vs. laptop.
The sample Anandtech had ran at 2.0 GHz and couldn't overclock very far. It's clock speed matches the LOW end of the Athlon 64 X2 line, and doesn't match the performance of all the X2s. From Anandtech's benchmarks, Yonah didn't beat the X2 in game benchmarks, and it's so close as far as the other benchmarks that it's not a huge win for Intel when compared to the X2 3800+.
From this, Intel has almost but not quite caught up to AMD's performance. If AMD can release 65nm versions of the X2 by July and can manufacture them decently, Intel will be back to playing catch-up. Just because AMD isn't planning a major change to the design of their chips doesn't mean they arn't going to be rolling out versions of current chips on the 65nm process which will let them compete well with the Yonah laptop they are talking about here.
So, I'll give credit to Intel, they have mostly caught up for now, but it remains to be seen if they can hold on to their current position as being CLOSE in performance to AMD's processors.
It's possible that Microsoft didn't expect quite as much of a demand as they have seen, but didn't want to admit it. If you look at the game lineup for the 360, it's ok, but not amazing. There arn't any real "must have" games for it in my opinion. The compatability with the original Xbox titles isn't perfect, and it will take a while before all of the really great game titles will run properly on the 360.
So, with this in mind, it's possible that Microsoft expected high demand for the holidays, but not quite as much as they found from the initial launch. No Microsoft exec would EVER say that they didn't expect their newest product to sell out on launch, but they might have thought it going into the launch.
Production issues due to the power supply overheat problem may also play a role in the limited amounts of 360 consoles we have seen until recently.
The original PC had 640x200 graphics, with some unusual modes that provided for more colors at yet lower resolutions. The jump to EGA(640x350) and even 640x480 were minor because initially these resolutions didn't add more color depth. It took until SVGA to give us a taste of the good quality graphics we have today on the PC.
Now, on the PC it's fairly common to have people running in 1280x1024 mode. 1600x1200 resolution is possible for most people, but due to screen size and limited UI scaling in applications, it's difficult for those who use the UI to run at 1600x1200 on a 19 inch screen because the on-screen controls become too small in many cases.
In comparison to normal TV, 1024x768 is high definition. It may not be the same thing as "HD" since HD in this case refers to a television display, but it's up there. 1600x1200 of course would seem like ultra high definition in comparison then.
So, for consoles, the big thing is that they now are pushing into higher resolutions than they had access to before. PC games have had this level for ages now. It's just that consoles are finally starting to show up. If we compare Oblivion for the PC and for the Xbox 360, I'm sure the PC version will still look quite a bit better, even if there may be some bugs on some machines due to hardware differences between machines that you don't see on a console.
But, think about this, a game with poor gameplay won't be improved just by the move to higher resolutions. A boring game wil still be boring. A game may have amazing cinematic effects and scenery, and cut scenes, but just moving to a higher resolution won't make a bad game good.
The game engine and code are probably still worth something to Turbine. Keep in mind that even if AC2 is dead, a bit of the code may have been used in Dungeons and Dragons Online for all we know.
The only time when source code will be released is if the rights to the game arn't sold and the developer is about to go under. Freespace 2 had it's source code released, but it's one of the few GOOD games where the source was released. I really wish that there had been a Freespace 3 because both Freespace 1 and 2 kicked some serious ass.
An issue is that due to the lack of a Windows XP CD and driver CD, the ONLY way to recover from some problems that were caused while troubleshooting the machine was to restore back to factory conditions(the ctrl-F11 routine). It ends up forcing the user to go back to factory conditions for ANYTHING.
My own complaint which was never addressed in the original article is that if you need to use the recovery CDs(which are NORMALLY included), since the machine is SATA based, you have NO way to restore. No floppy drive=no way to install the SATA drivers from the CD(which are in a self extracting EXE anyway). So, you can't use a recovery CD, you can't partition the hard drive, format the drive, or anything needed to get back up and running anyway. That's a BIG issue that I have with Dell and Microsoft at this point. Couldn't Microsoft have provided CD access in their damn installer to install SCSI drivers? Why floppy-only?
If you want a choice in what goes into your computer, then you also end up with difficulty for application developers. What works on an ATI video card may not work on a NVIDIA based video card. Want to play a game on a video card that's 4 years old? That adds more complexity to the design and testing of a game.
As the complexity of a game increases, the more chance there is of a bug being introduced that will get noticed. It's not a function of the quality as much as too many different combinations of equipment. In some cases, there are conflicts between a motherboard and video card that only show up in very rare situations that MAY show up only with a specific game and the way the game is coded. Unless you expect that every game developer out there sets up several THOUSAND systems for QA with all the different motherboards, video cards, and operating systems out there, it's IMPOSSIBLE to catch every bug. Also, since the video and sound card drivers change fairly often, what works in testing may not work.
As for controllers, have you seen a mouse and keyboard that will work with an Xbox 360? Think they would allow too many different input devices to be made for it and force developers to support all the different possible input devices? Do you think ANY console developer would allow for different specs for their consoles?
The reason console games generally have very good quality control is because there is NO variation in a console. Patches, and mods, expansion packs and user-made additions to games are a GOOD thing. We all wish that games on the PC would have zero bugs, but you need to be realistic. If every game that comes out for a console were expected to run well on the previous generation console, you'd see a lot of problems too if the consoles were supposed to be fully compatable.
There are a lot of reasons for playing games on a PC instead of on a console.
For starters, you can generally run at a higher resolution with higher video quality on a PC when compared to a console. Even HD for a display doesn't give the video quality of a cheap monitor. You can turn on Anti-Aliasing to improve the video quality as well.
You can upgrade and choose the level of the system you want. You arn't stuck with a single configuration, you can choose to start with a very low end machine and work your way upward from there.
Mods, short for modifications are available for many games now. I'm not talking about things like "nude patches", but instead, good solid additions to a game, or changes to improve a game. If there is a problem with a game, in many cases a fix can be gotten.
Expansions don't need to include the full original game. As a result, expansions will be cheaper compared to buying the original game all over again with each expansion.
Controls and interface tend to offer more complexity on a PC compared to a console. Yes, there are cases where a controller will be a better choice, but in many cases, having a full keyboard available for controls will help make a game less complicated. No need for "left thumb while holding the B button and then hitting A to make a special combination" if you have a keyboard which has keys mapped to these type of moves.
There are more types of games out there besides action games. I know it's shocking, but there are a lot of people out there who prefer strategy or adventure games. Try playing a game like civilization 4 and you will see that having a keyboard makes the game a lot easier than some console game controller. Flight simulators also have a LOT of controls, and as a result, having a lot of keys for all these different controls really does make a game more playable. The list goes on.
These are just a few of the reasons to go with a PC for games. If you look at the price of game consoles these days, you should know that the Xbox 360 will cost you $300 or more depending on which features come with your console. With these prices, a computer that costs $700 and can do work, allow you to chat with friends, do research, browse the web, and so on really isn't a horrible price to pay.
If you enjoy consoles, that's fine, but if you compare some games available on both the PC and console, you might be amazed that the PC is a better platform for many games. Just don't think that a game that came out on a console then got released on a PC is an indication of what a true PC game can do. Also don't try to compare how things are on a $400 computer to a $400 console because it's not a fair comparison unless you have a choice in what to get for your child. A top of the line console costs $400, a top of the line computer can cost over $2000 for a complete system, and a BOTTOM of the line computer costs $400. A $1000 computer(including monitor) can compare well to a $400 console, yet provides a lot more functionality.
The real benefit is in bringing more operating capitol into the company. A nice thing is that if the owners set up the IPO properly, the owners can still hold on to a majority share no matter what else happens. It's not as simple as saying "This company is now entirely owned by the stockholders". If as a part of the initial filing, the current management is granted 75 percent of the company for example, then the public shares are only worth 25 percent of the company.
It's true that going public will generally lead to a lot of money going into the pockets of the upper management, but in a good company, that upper management will feed money back into the company to help it if needed.
Now, going forward, with all of the in-game advertising we are seeing these days, going public MAY help improve the prices that can be charged for in-game advertising, or even for web site revenues via advertising. With consoles, being a more recognized company may also help with contracts for console titles, though I don't see how a console manufacturer could ignore a Bioware developed title, the new joint entity doesn't have the name recognition yet.
Considering how much research has gone into research on primates, it's almost funny that it's taken researchers this long to come up with this conclusion. Full grown chimps compared to human children. Ok, so a fully developed chimp is better at some things than a human child. Children need time to grow up. If a young chimp were to beat a human child, THEN there would be something interesting to report.
A gorilla is stronger than just about any human out there. An ape can fall from a much higher distance than a human without getting seriously hurt. The list of things goes on where humans arn't necessarily the best at everything. When it comes to brain development, it may take a bit of time for a human to develop, but look at the differences between an adult of each species, not between adults and children of different species.
There are really two seperate VOIP markets out there right now. The one that is mentioned here is the software version that goes through the computer of the user. Software based VOIP has been around for a long time now, but is limited in many ways.
VOIP also has the "phone line replacement" type, such as Vonage, Optimum Voice(Cablevision's VOIP service), and others that let you use the service using a regular telephone that is plugged into a cable modem, router, or telephone adapter which makes your current broadband connection into a replacement for your local phone company.
Software that lets people talk through the computer tends to be cheap, but has it's limitations(such as not being able to use a regular cordless phone and walk around while talking). Don't confuse the two because software based VOIP is no substitute for the other type.
The thing is that we arn't seeing games re-released for the new consoles with the higher polygon count though. We only see the higher resolution textures without the other stuff that would make a "new port" seem like a good improvement.
Considering that games on the PC tend to be intended to run at 1024x768 or above(1280x1024 or 1600x1200 are very common), that's the video level people want to see from a HD title. I don't think we will see this quality video for quite a while yet. Improved textures are easy enough to implement, but that doesn't mean that the graphics or feel of a game has improved much.
Now, companies CAN prepare well in advance for next generation computers and equipment by developing well beyond the current abilities of the consoles. Make it so the models use 5 million polygons each in the design of the game. Who cares that the game runs at 3 frames per second on current equipment. Then the developer can scale down the number of polygons in order to make it run on the target system. Rebuild for the next console, and porting will at least provide the graphics improvements people look for. A game like Jade Empire could be re-released with an XBOX 360 version with improved graphics if the original game was intended to be that much better than the original Xbox could handle.
A part of the problem is that Christians tend to think that they are different from those who follow other religions when it comes to "ideal" behavior.
EVERY major religion has a similar outward attitude when it comes to their followers. That attitude is to help people become better human beings. It doesn't matter if you are Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc... The key is to try to be a better person. Help others who need help, try to stop yourself from doing bad things, and so on. Why is it that people see Christians as the most concerned about the problems in the world around us?
EVERYONE is concerned about violence in video games being seen as acceptable while a little nudity is horrible. The thing is how rational people will be when it comes to dealing with the problem.
So, back to the topic of the thread....
The ESRB really didn't make a mistake when they set the original M rating on GTA. The game itself didn't have the AO material available unless you hacked the game code to unlock Hot Coffee. Unless you expect the ESRB to spend time hacking every game title to see what was deleted at the last minute, you couldn't expect them to look for removed features/scenes. Once the issue was brought to their attention, they acted on the information.
For those confused about the difference between M and AO for the one year age difference between them, consider that we have R rated movies(ages 17 and up unless in the company of a parent or guardian), NC-17(you need to be 17 or older regardless of if a parent is there), and X(21 and up).
So, AO then could be set to be 21+ instead of 18+ I suppose.
A problem that I see is that there isn't really enough common sense out there in the game industry. You see virtually no nudity in games that are rated M, which puts in a huge gap in content for those who are 18 and over. PG-13 movies will sometimes have more nudity than we see in M rated titles. It's a part of the differences between the movie industry and game industry. Games are getting closer and closer to being considered a part of the entertainment industry as a whole, but there are too many conceptual differences there right now to bridge the gap. Christian groups don't say much these days about movies having mature themes in PG-13 movies yet they flip out if there's even a hint of sexuality or violence in a game.
In the mid '90s, many people would get out of college and take an entry level IT or tech support job as their entry-level job. There were plenty of start-ups, not just in the San Francisco Bay area, but all around the country. It wasn't hype, or a bubble, it was a sudden recognition that computers were the direction things were going in. As a result, there were plenty of jobs to be found in most areas of the country where technology use was expanding.
.com crash in the stock market(which was seperate from the crash in the overall tech sector itself), the venture capitol money went away, including money that would be needed for GOOD ideas. Many of the smaller companies, both with great ideas and products, and those without a product that were started as a result of the hype, went under due to a sudden reduction in customers. Remember that many companies made and sold products for use by other companies, not just trying to sell to end-users.
.com crash, we need to convince companies that use computers and pay contractors to hire people for full-time positions. Here on Long Island, it seems that there is a higher than normal reliance on contractors. Instead of paying someone $40,000/year to be at the company fixing problems, many companies end up spending $40,000/year to have someone come in from the outside to come in on demand. The result is a smaller number of IT jobs. Note that a contractor can come in and get paid $40,000/year by more than one company because that contractor can do work for multiple companies, and gets paid more per hour than a regular employee.
The new companies that were founded were the source of many of the tech jobs that were out there. The problem is that after the
With the reduction in the number of companies came the natural reduction in the number of IT positions. With the reduction in IT positions came the reduction in spending on technology, in addition to the loss because people who work with computers spend money on computers for themselves, not just their companies.
In order for IT to recover, we don't need to return to the days prior to the
There is plenty of work out there for those in IT, the problem is to make companies realize that having someone on-staff to keep things running well is better than waiting for things to break before bringing someone in. If people didn't change the oil in their car/SUV/truck, they would end up paying more in repairs than it costs to get regular maintenance. It's too bad that many companies don't seem to understand the similarities.