I always wondered why the U stood for "universal". Universal in what way? I mean it's hardly a universal format. Universally used by nothing except the PSP. Maybe it was originally supposed to be "uncopyable" because it's an "unwriteable" format.
I played City of Heroes through to the level cap and have been playing World of Warcraft for about 3 weeks. I also played a couple of the Guild Wars beta events. In City of Heroes all of the missions are instanced which works fairly well but at the cost of those mission areas not really feeling like "real" places. You can't revisit them, they are just a doorway that opens while you have the mission. Once the mission is over the instance is gone. While World of Warcraft has instanced dungeons, most of the quests are not instances. The nice thing about this is that the quest locations are part of the overall zone map and they are always present. The downside is that you may run into other groups looting the same area as you. This isn't really a big deal as the respawn time on the big baddies you need to kill is pretty quick. For bigger more complicated dungeons I think instances work well. The biggest complaint I have with Guild Wars is that the large open instanced areas feel so empty compared to either CoH or WoW. You won't see anyone else, which just makes it feel less, well massive. It's cool to see other players running around doing there own thing. This has lead to interaction and meeting new friends for me in other MMOs.
You have a central area where you can meet people much like the chat room system in Diablo. You have a small town with the NPC merchants and trainers sitting around in a circle much like Diablo. When you have your group together you enter the instanced dungeon, much like Diablo. The environment boxes you in (no jumping, falling, climbing hills) much like Diablo. The game FEELS much more like an evolution on Diablo then it does the typical MMO structure seen in everything from Everquest to World of Warcraft. Is that a bad thing? Depends on your play style and what you are looking for in an online game. Just don't go in expecting it to be a standard MMO - it isn't. To be fair there are plenty of other things (in particular the focus on guild pvp) which are new and different from previous games.
It sucks that when ever anyone notes problems they had with OS X or Apple they get modded as troll. As others here have said - do yourself a favor and get more RAM. It will make a huge difference. We have a Powerbook G4 here at the office with 256MB of RAM and I was amazed at how bad it performs. Mostly because I am used to using machines with 512MB or 1GB of RAM. This applies for XP as well, you really do lose performance running XP in 256MB of RAM. Both operating systems hit their sweet spot at 1GB in my opinion (I should note I'm a heavy multitasker and run a lot of apps concurrently).
Yep. I would imagine this simplified the programming a bit. Plenty of other games do things like this, for example in Diablo the environment, no matter what it looked like was just maze walls boxing you in. Somehow for me this works better when you aren't using a full 3D engine. With the full 3D it just looks and feels like you can't go somewhere you SHOULD be able to. In isometric pseudo 3D like Diablo, it doesn't really look like you should be able to jump into the prerendered pit. So the mechanic isn't as jarring.
One of the guildies dared comment on how FUCKED the player pathing is in this game. i.e. you will follow the assigned path, no jumping, no falling, no straying from the designated path in any way (hail, counter-intuitive!), and ListAddition01 called him an IGN noob.
This is one of the things I really didn't like when trying the beta weekends. No ability to slide down a hill or jump off a ledge. Feels like you have these invisible walls blocking in your movement. I especially didn't like that some of the maps make you take a long winding path around because of this. Even though it looks like you could just down a 2 foot drop to where you need to go. I realize this sounds like a small thing, but it just seemed like a stupid game mechanic.
Uh, because within the emulation community the term "ROM" has come to mean a game file which is used by an emulator? Obviously this comes from the fact that these files are dumps of the contents of the physical game ROMS. The majority of aracade and console game software orignally resided on ROMs. But in general this has become a slang term. For example you will commonly see reference to "Commodore 64 ROMs". While the Commodore 64 did have ROM game cartridges, the vast majority of programs were distributed on disk or tape. Compare this misuse of the term to using "iso" to mean a CD or DVD disc image. Originally used because the CDROM file format is known as ISO-9660, where the ISO is simply referring to the International Organization for Standardization. ISO develops a lot more than CDROM format standards. It should also be noted that the term iso is used to refer to any CD disc image including ones that are not in an ISO standard format.
"First off remember the point was that Microsoft and Intel don't deserve all the credit even for the PCs. It seems like you are agreeing (you eem to be putting it primarily at Compaq)."
No single company deserves all the credit. Hell, if IBM had been able to legally prevent the bios cloning who knows what we might be running. Keep in mind IBM was the "evil empire" of the PC world in the '80s and dealt with anti-trust lawsuits in the '80s just as Microsoft continues to do today. But it is true that peripheral hardware which is used outside of the x86 platform plays an important part in the creation of the commodity PC market. Consortiums that create industry standard components have helped this as well (see DDR-RAM's success vs. proprietary RDRAM). And sure your alternate history sounds interesting, but it is pure speculation. The point is that many companies and many factors have brought us to where we are today. If there were more different popular systems, software interoperability probably would have become a much more important. I can remember the old days where companies ported programs to many different platforms. I think around 6 or 7 at the height of the 8bit to 16bit computing switchover. That certainly woulnd't have been sustainable with the current level of code complexity unless development was managed differently. But yeah, I absolutely agree that Microsoft and Intel shouldn't be given total credit for the "PC revolution".
If you read my post I never state that Windows had ANYTHING to do with it. Windows and many other companies rode the IBM wave. As I stated it really wasn't until the early to mid '90s when the other hardware platforms were driven out of business due to the rapidly dropping cost of commodity PCs. If it had been Motorola based machines that had dominated, I'm sure you would have seen Windows on that platform.
"What was unique about the IBM in a fundamental sense that wasn't true of the Commdore/Amigas, DEC Rainbows, Ataris, Osbornes, Apple/Macs, Tandys...?"
The fact that the IBM lock-in was broken by the clone manufacturers as you stated. This drove the commodity PC market, caused prices to drop dramatically and wiped every other type of home computer off the market with the exception of the Mac. And you have to admit that during the mid '90s Apple was in bad shape too. When I first got a Commodore 64 as a kid, it was because it was cheap and reasonably powerful for the time. IBM PCs were in a completely different price range, had terrible graphics, sound etc. Flash forward 10 years and the price situation had reversed. Now it was the Commodore Amiga that had become more expensive while the PC clones (now with VGA graphics, nice audio and a primative GUI) prices were dropping every day. The huge numbers of PC being sold meant that a ton of software was developed for the platform. DOS, Windows even OS/2. You see Linux emerging around this time as well. All because of cheap hardware. Little guys like the Atari STs and Amigas couldn't compete. They were locked into custom hardware and had to weigh their internal R&D costs versus the entire PC industry. A lot of great ideas, great systems died in the early '90s. While this is sad, I can't complain too much because the cost of good hardware has come down, and you have some good choices on the software side. Even Apple has benefitted from commodity PC components (IDE drives, PCI bus, AGP video cards etc.).
Ok, so there is a folder and it's called "Fonts". You get there by clicking on it in the control panel. This opens the folder called "Fonts" and it shows you inside, all these fonts. So you can open it and see, "ooooh, font folder with fonts in it". Then you can maybe think "This appears to be wherer fonts go. Hey I bet I can put a font in here and then I can use it". Hardly obscure dumbass. I suppose you consider it proper to drag an app off a CD to install it but not drag a font?
I liked the whiz bang special effects. I just covered my eyes and babbled "lalalalalalalala" at the top of my lungs during the long dialog parts. Helped my enjoyment immensely.
The time to make the move would be when there is a 64bit application that you want to use. Otherwise you will be dealing with lack of third party driver support and possible compatibility issues without any real reason. Personally, I'd wait before making the jump.
At this stage of the game it doesn't make any sense for most users to switch to 64 bit XP. It isn't mature enough and doesn't have enough driver support. This is being put out there so that businesses that have a special need for 64bit computing (for example large memory address space) can get started. Expect to see plenty of patching and continued development moving forward.
Personally I'm hoping the series focuses on Kit Fisto. I mean even if he dies in Episode 3, they could like make him escape and be all a hidden jedi. Cus his name is so cool. It's even better than other Lucas wonders like General Grievous or Count Dooku. Say it with me: "Kit Fisto" I think he could have a couple buddies that he goes around with maybe give them cool names too, I dunno something like: "Sphincs Clinchster" or "Spahnk Azzcheek" Ok, so I'm not Lucas when it comes to cool names, but I think you know what I mean. It would so totally rule, and he has big weird eyes too. And tentacles or dread locks or some combination of the two. They rock! Go Kit Fisto!
"The strokes don't get broader than this. But basically, all Windows is good for here is running Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint). Everything else is better off running on Linux: Intranet Web servers, email servers, file servers, backup servers, Oracle, and corporate firewall."
Um yeah and you've levied a broad stroke yourself. What about niche industry applications? You're looking at things very generically. A big issue here is also size of company, size of budget, whether you have an in house development team. For example one publishing company I work with has an integrated workflow that ties the following together:
High end CRM (customer relationship management software) handling everything from sales communication, contract creation, sales forecasting etc. Integrates with Outlook, syncs out to Palm and PocketPC PDAs. A custom traffic system which handles tracking of advertising materials from sales through to production. Also integrated with a web based production job ticketing system. Once the ad has gone through the system it arrives in Accounting which is another application server running on Windows. Crystal reports handles reporting for each one of these systems. The common backend for evertything is SQL server. Groupware components are Exchange server and the CRM app. 90% of this system is off the shelf. The other 10% uses primarily asp.net or VBA. Development and integration cost were relatively minor. Sure you can roll your own on Linux or UNIX but the cost is going to be higher. There are not complete packages available targetted at the small business to accomplish this. Believe me I've looked. And yes the company does run Linux for other services and primarily uses BSD for network monitoring and the like.
RMS generally projects an all or nothing stance on free software which I've always found irritating. If some could explain to me why the death of paid for software would be better than the current "best of both worlds" environment we have today, I would love to hear it. I think open source and free software is a great thing, I also don't see anything wrong with paid software. I use both depending on what the needs are . I understand that having the source is a great thing, but for more complex programs it hardly makes practical sense to go in and whack the code as you see fit. You are usually better off keeping it in line with the major open source release in order to maintain compatibility with security patches and upgrades. So much the same as with closed source code, you are dependant on the developers to push the code further. In an open source project sure you might jump on the developer team and help out, but for most people this is unrealistic. They use software as tools to accomplish a job or run a business. They don't want to become developers.
I've used Macs professionally since 1990. At the time I used an Amiga at home and preferred it. Throughout the '90s I used Macs, various Windows versions, Linux and BSD. I still use the different operating systems for different reasons (Macs for publishing, Linux and BSD on the server side). My home computer runs Windows XP. There are a number of things I prefer about it, mostly flexibility in hardware on the platform and the wide range of software (including games). To state that a Mac is "really is better than Windows for everything" is just stupid. I fail to see how it is insightful. It sure isn't better at running Windows software. So if I want to run a Windows program which isn't available for Mac, I really don't see how the Mac would be better. Blatant across the boards statements such as this when treated as fact just dilute any meaningful discourse present here.
I call total bullshit on you. Windows 95 has preemptive multitasking when running 32 bit applications. Even in Mac OS System 8 the cooperative tasking finder was TERRIBLE. I used to demonstrate this to people by copying a file. Keep the file copy window highlighted and everything is hunky dory. Click on the desktop (deselecting the file copy dialog) and the file copy would slow to a crawl. System 7 couldn't even do that. I'm not flaming I've used Macs longer than I've used PCs and UNIX longer than both. Just seems like everyone who is so Mac OSX happy forgets how primative the earlier Mac OS was. You think Windows XP doesn't have preemptive multitasking? So how can I do a DIVX encoding in the background and play Doom 3 without any apparent lag?
Slashdot Mirror
I always wondered why the U stood for "universal". Universal in what way? I mean it's hardly a universal format. Universally used by nothing except the PSP.
Maybe it was originally supposed to be "uncopyable" because it's an "unwriteable" format.
I played City of Heroes through to the level cap and have been playing World of Warcraft for about 3 weeks. I also played a couple of the Guild Wars beta events.
In City of Heroes all of the missions are instanced which works fairly well but at the cost of those mission areas not really feeling like "real" places. You can't revisit them, they are just a doorway that opens while you have the mission. Once the mission is over the instance is gone.
While World of Warcraft has instanced dungeons, most of the quests are not instances. The nice thing about this is that the quest locations are part of the overall zone map and they are always present. The downside is that you may run into other groups looting the same area as you. This isn't really a big deal as the respawn time on the big baddies you need to kill is pretty quick.
For bigger more complicated dungeons I think instances work well.
The biggest complaint I have with Guild Wars is that the large open instanced areas feel so empty compared to either CoH or WoW. You won't see anyone else, which just makes it feel less, well massive. It's cool to see other players running around doing there own thing. This has lead to interaction and meeting new friends for me in other MMOs.
You have a central area where you can meet people much like the chat room system in Diablo. You have a small town with the NPC merchants and trainers sitting around in a circle much like Diablo. When you have your group together you enter the instanced dungeon, much like Diablo. The environment boxes you in (no jumping, falling, climbing hills) much like Diablo.
The game FEELS much more like an evolution on Diablo then it does the typical MMO structure seen in everything from Everquest to World of Warcraft.
Is that a bad thing? Depends on your play style and what you are looking for in an online game. Just don't go in expecting it to be a standard MMO - it isn't.
To be fair there are plenty of other things (in particular the focus on guild pvp) which are new and different from previous games.
It sucks that when ever anyone notes problems they had with OS X or Apple they get modded as troll.
As others here have said - do yourself a favor and get more RAM. It will make a huge difference.
We have a Powerbook G4 here at the office with 256MB of RAM and I was amazed at how bad it performs. Mostly because I am used to using machines with 512MB or 1GB of RAM.
This applies for XP as well, you really do lose performance running XP in 256MB of RAM. Both operating systems hit their sweet spot at 1GB in my opinion (I should note I'm a heavy multitasker and run a lot of apps concurrently).
Yep. I would imagine this simplified the programming a bit. Plenty of other games do things like this, for example in Diablo the environment, no matter what it looked like was just maze walls boxing you in. Somehow for me this works better when you aren't using a full 3D engine. With the full 3D it just looks and feels like you can't go somewhere you SHOULD be able to. In isometric pseudo 3D like Diablo, it doesn't really look like you should be able to jump into the prerendered pit. So the mechanic isn't as jarring.
One of the guildies dared comment on how FUCKED the player pathing is in this game. i.e. you will follow the assigned path, no jumping, no falling, no straying from the designated path in any way (hail, counter-intuitive!), and ListAddition01 called him an IGN noob.
This is one of the things I really didn't like when trying the beta weekends. No ability to slide down a hill or jump off a ledge. Feels like you have these invisible walls blocking in your movement.
I especially didn't like that some of the maps make you take a long winding path around because of this. Even though it looks like you could just down a 2 foot drop to where you need to go.
I realize this sounds like a small thing, but it just seemed like a stupid game mechanic.
Uh, because within the emulation community the term "ROM" has come to mean a game file which is used by an emulator? Obviously this comes from the fact that these files are dumps of the contents of the physical game ROMS. The majority of aracade and console game software orignally resided on ROMs.
But in general this has become a slang term. For example you will commonly see reference to "Commodore 64 ROMs". While the Commodore 64 did have ROM game cartridges, the vast majority of programs were distributed on disk or tape.
Compare this misuse of the term to using "iso" to mean a CD or DVD disc image. Originally used because the CDROM file format is known as ISO-9660, where the ISO is simply referring to the International Organization for Standardization. ISO develops a lot more than CDROM format standards. It should also be noted that the term iso is used to refer to any CD disc image including ones that are not in an ISO standard format.
Aw who cares. It's the most intuitive GUI evar!
I mean consider this a moment:
Have you ever noticed that when you click the "Start" button, the first option on the list is "Shut Down"?
Brilliant.
"First off remember the point was that Microsoft and Intel don't deserve all the credit even for the PCs. It seems like you are agreeing (you eem to be putting it primarily at Compaq)."
No single company deserves all the credit. Hell, if IBM had been able to legally prevent the bios cloning who knows what we might be running. Keep in mind IBM was the "evil empire" of the PC world in the '80s and dealt with anti-trust lawsuits in the '80s just as Microsoft continues to do today.
But it is true that peripheral hardware which is used outside of the x86 platform plays an important part in the creation of the commodity PC market. Consortiums that create industry standard components have helped this as well (see DDR-RAM's success vs. proprietary RDRAM).
And sure your alternate history sounds interesting, but it is pure speculation. The point is that many companies and many factors have brought us to where we are today.
If there were more different popular systems, software interoperability probably would have become a much more important. I can remember the old days where companies ported programs to many different platforms. I think around 6 or 7 at the height of the 8bit to 16bit computing switchover. That certainly woulnd't have been sustainable with the current level of code complexity unless development was managed differently.
But yeah, I absolutely agree that Microsoft and Intel shouldn't be given total credit for the "PC revolution".
If you read my post I never state that Windows had ANYTHING to do with it. Windows and many other companies rode the IBM wave. As I stated it really wasn't until the early to mid '90s when the other hardware platforms were driven out of business due to the rapidly dropping cost of commodity PCs.
If it had been Motorola based machines that had dominated, I'm sure you would have seen Windows on that platform.
"What was unique about the IBM in a fundamental sense that wasn't true of the Commdore/Amigas, DEC Rainbows, Ataris, Osbornes, Apple/Macs, Tandys...?"
The fact that the IBM lock-in was broken by the clone manufacturers as you stated. This drove the commodity PC market, caused prices to drop dramatically and wiped every other type of home computer off the market with the exception of the Mac. And you have to admit that during the mid '90s Apple was in bad shape too.
When I first got a Commodore 64 as a kid, it was because it was cheap and reasonably powerful for the time. IBM PCs were in a completely different price range, had terrible graphics, sound etc. Flash forward 10 years and the price situation had reversed. Now it was the Commodore Amiga that had become more expensive while the PC clones (now with VGA graphics, nice audio and a primative GUI) prices were dropping every day.
The huge numbers of PC being sold meant that a ton of software was developed for the platform. DOS, Windows even OS/2. You see Linux emerging around this time as well. All because of cheap hardware.
Little guys like the Atari STs and Amigas couldn't compete. They were locked into custom hardware and had to weigh their internal R&D costs versus the entire PC industry.
A lot of great ideas, great systems died in the early '90s. While this is sad, I can't complain too much because the cost of good hardware has come down, and you have some good choices on the software side. Even Apple has benefitted from commodity PC components (IDE drives, PCI bus, AGP video cards etc.).
"see's the sexiness that is osx"
That's just gross. I don't care if your OS makes you feel like getting a wank on. Please keep your autoerotic Mac fantasies to yourself.
Ok, so there is a folder and it's called "Fonts". You get there by clicking on it in the control panel. This opens the folder called "Fonts" and it shows you inside, all these fonts. So you can open it and see, "ooooh, font folder with fonts in it". Then you can maybe think "This appears to be wherer fonts go. Hey I bet I can put a font in here and then I can use it".
Hardly obscure dumbass. I suppose you consider it proper to drag an app off a CD to install it but not drag a font?
As Bubba Ho-Tep has shown, the rest home can be an excellent setting for a pulp adventure story.
10 fantasy films better than Willow. Hmm that's a hard one.
LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
LOTR: The Two Towers
LOTR: The Return of the King
What! Series counts as one movie? Who makes these arbitrary rules.
Jason and the Argonauts
Sinbad (3 movie series)
Ok, umm...
Conan the Barbarian?
Clash of the Titans?
Beastmaster?
The Sword and the Sorceror?
Kull the Conqueror?
Uh.....
I know... Krull!
(Ok, I give up.)
I liked the whiz bang special effects. I just covered my eyes and babbled "lalalalalalalala" at the top of my lungs during the long dialog parts. Helped my enjoyment immensely.
"with the very, very young Harrison Ford."
Well, he wasn't that young. Ford was born in 1942. American Graffiti came out in 1973. He was probably 30 during the shooting of the film.
The time to make the move would be when there is a 64bit application that you want to use. Otherwise you will be dealing with lack of third party driver support and possible compatibility issues without any real reason.
Personally, I'd wait before making the jump.
At this stage of the game it doesn't make any sense for most users to switch to 64 bit XP. It isn't mature enough and doesn't have enough driver support. This is being put out there so that businesses that have a special need for 64bit computing (for example large memory address space) can get started.
Expect to see plenty of patching and continued development moving forward.
Personally I'm hoping the series focuses on Kit Fisto. I mean even if he dies in Episode 3, they could like make him escape and be all a hidden jedi. Cus his name is so cool. It's even better than other Lucas wonders like General Grievous or Count Dooku.
Say it with me: "Kit Fisto"
I think he could have a couple buddies that he goes around with maybe give them cool names too, I dunno something like:
"Sphincs Clinchster" or "Spahnk Azzcheek"
Ok, so I'm not Lucas when it comes to cool names, but I think you know what I mean.
It would so totally rule, and he has big weird eyes too. And tentacles or dread locks or some combination of the two. They rock!
Go Kit Fisto!
"The strokes don't get broader than this. But basically, all Windows is good for here is running Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint). Everything else is better off running on Linux: Intranet Web servers, email servers, file servers, backup servers, Oracle, and corporate firewall."
.net or VBA. Development and integration cost were relatively minor.
Um yeah and you've levied a broad stroke yourself. What about niche industry applications? You're looking at things very generically.
A big issue here is also size of company, size of budget, whether you have an in house development team.
For example one publishing company I work with has an integrated workflow that ties the following together:
High end CRM (customer relationship management software) handling everything from sales communication, contract creation, sales forecasting etc. Integrates with Outlook, syncs out to Palm and PocketPC PDAs.
A custom traffic system which handles tracking of advertising materials from sales through to production.
Also integrated with a web based production job ticketing system.
Once the ad has gone through the system it arrives in Accounting which is another application server running on Windows.
Crystal reports handles reporting for each one of these systems.
The common backend for evertything is SQL server. Groupware components are Exchange server and the CRM app.
90% of this system is off the shelf. The other 10% uses primarily asp
Sure you can roll your own on Linux or UNIX but the cost is going to be higher. There are not complete packages available targetted at the small business to accomplish this. Believe me I've looked.
And yes the company does run Linux for other services and primarily uses BSD for network monitoring and the like.
RMS generally projects an all or nothing stance on free software which I've always found irritating. If some could explain to me why the death of paid for software would be better than the current "best of both worlds" environment we have today, I would love to hear it.
I think open source and free software is a great thing, I also don't see anything wrong with paid software. I use both depending on what the needs are . I understand that having the source is a great thing, but for more complex programs it hardly makes practical sense to go in and whack the code as you see fit. You are usually better off keeping it in line with the major open source release in order to maintain compatibility with security patches and upgrades. So much the same as with closed source code, you are dependant on the developers to push the code further. In an open source project sure you might jump on the developer team and help out, but for most people this is unrealistic. They use software as tools to accomplish a job or run a business. They don't want to become developers.
Congratulations! Judging by the responses to your post no one realized you were making a joke!
I've used Macs professionally since 1990. At the time I used an Amiga at home and preferred it. Throughout the '90s I used Macs, various Windows versions, Linux and BSD.
I still use the different operating systems for different reasons (Macs for publishing, Linux and BSD on the server side). My home computer runs Windows XP. There are a number of things I prefer about it, mostly flexibility in hardware on the platform and the wide range of software (including games).
To state that a Mac is "really is better than Windows for everything" is just stupid. I fail to see how it is insightful. It sure isn't better at running Windows software. So if I want to run a Windows program which isn't available for Mac, I really don't see how the Mac would be better.
Blatant across the boards statements such as this when treated as fact just dilute any meaningful discourse present here.
I call total bullshit on you.
Windows 95 has preemptive multitasking when running 32 bit applications.
Even in Mac OS System 8 the cooperative tasking finder was TERRIBLE. I used to demonstrate this to people by copying a file. Keep the file copy window highlighted and everything is hunky dory. Click on the desktop (deselecting the file copy dialog) and the file copy would slow to a crawl.
System 7 couldn't even do that.
I'm not flaming I've used Macs longer than I've used PCs and UNIX longer than both. Just seems like everyone who is so Mac OSX happy forgets how primative the earlier Mac OS was.
You think Windows XP doesn't have preemptive multitasking? So how can I do a DIVX encoding in the background and play Doom 3 without any apparent lag?