I would LOVE to see a 3D remake of FF IV or FF VI, as long as they could keep the dialogue and story intact for the most part. I wouldn't mind a music synthesis upgrade as well, as long as it wasn't butchered.
Such a game would really show us how an RPG could stand the test of time. It would be much easier to compare it to a newer games, like FFX. Which one would come out on top if FFIV had the graphics of FFX?
Do your really think that any of these "unbiased" sources of "information" are really going to pay someone to write something bad about Squaresoft? I seriously doubt it. Square could paint a turd gold and everyone would claim to love it.
I kinda liked Mystic Quest. Sure, it was simple, but there was some mildly entertaining stuff in that game. The FF Legend Game Boy titles (SaGa games, really), were terrible... Final Fantasy Adventure was quite a lot of fun though, and was a great prequel to Secret of Mana.
Agreed. I love 4 and 6 so much, that I can't decide which is my favorite. I still own the original carts (along with Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana). I purchased my Playstation in 1997 so that I could enjoy FF7. In many ways, I did enjoy the seventh game, but there was something about it that just bothered me. The characters lacked the development of those in the old games. Character designs became cookie-cutter from one game to the next. Sure, the series has evolved. But it's lost a lot more than it has gained. I've played the last 3 games quite a bit and I thought that they were totally weak. Same goes for Chrono Cross and Legend of Mana. The Square franchises have really gone downhill over the last 4 years. The only real hope that I have is that their merge with Enix might bring back some of the teams that really knew how to work wonders with RPG design. The two companies can really use on another. Square needs to come back closer to the basics and Enix (in many ways) needs to start exploring some new territory. It's a perfect match. I have my hopes high for Crystal Chronicles. You couldn't pay me to take FF X2.
It's quite likely that they are protecting their customers because they wouldn't have these customers of their high-speed online services without the need to download large files. Most of the large files are video and music. There are a larger portion of cable Internet users than DSL users. I'm guessing that SBC is doing all they can do to keep the customers of their DSL service. So, I suppose that they could be trying to improve their image, but if they didn't then nobody would have any need for them.
Linux and UNIX users can view the film. Its players have no problem with the WMV file format.
My problem is that they state that you need to be based in the UK to view the film. I don't live in the UK. What's the hang-up here? Is it because of the payment system that they are using?
It's not Linux that is my problem, it's that they aren't treating the Internet like the global village that it really is.
That's actually a pretty cool skin. I don't normally use MPlayer skins, but I'm going to give this one a shot. Thanks!
Re:Other recent releases: Totem, GNOME 2 media pla
on
MPlayer 1.0Pre1 Is Here
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Unless you require a scrollbar to navigate a movie, MPlayer generally works well when you associate it with Nautilus. I double-click on a thumbnail for a movie (generated by Gnome-Thumbnail-Factory) and MPlayer launches with the movie. I run it without the GUI though, so I merely use the arrow keys to navigate the movie, SPACE to pause, Q to quit.
It's true though, that MPlayer's GUI is sucky. I wish that they'd just use a standard GTK based deal, and not some rediculous XMMS/Winamp sort of skin, which by the way also drastically increases the CPU load when playing video files. I've thought of writing a better GUI for MPlayer, but I just don't know enough about GTK programming. Lumiere is a great project, but I've not been able to get it to compile because it is beta code (and is for some reason heavily dependant on specific system configurations and file locations).
Older versions of the standard Windows Media Player (default installs with the OS) had SVCD support, if I'm not mistaken. However, you had to direct it to the MPEG file on the CD. It was a roundabout method of playing VCDs and SVCDs, but it worked well (in my experience).
Re:But how does it stand up to the comeptition?
on
MPlayer 1.0Pre1 Is Here
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've found that MPlayer is more stable than XINE, and it plays video with a lot less CPU load. However, on one occasion, I had to use a XINElib based player (Totem) to play a really messed up WMV file that didn't seem to be properly encoded. Totem (XINElib) could play it, but MPlayer gave no video, even though they were using the same codecs from the same directory.
MPlayer is my default player of choice, without the GUI (I prefer to use the arrowkeys for file navigation). It's associated in Nautilus to play all of my files. However, I keep Totem as my backup, though I've only had to use it once (in two years). I've found XINElib stuff to hard-lock my machine on multiple occasions, though in recent tests its been much more stable.
One final thing about MPlayer. It, and its encoder, MEncoder, are great programs. You can have MPlayer send the output of an audi file to a raw PCM or WAV format, and convert it into OGG or MP3, so that you can play the files back in XMMS or something. I used it recently to convert some WMVs into OGG, for testing, and it sounded great. I couldn't notice any real difference between the files, and all of my Linux players could then handle the file.
I don't understand. MPlayer *does* actually play files. It can stream any normal format as well. It plays all files except really obscure and useless formats.
This is true. However, in the same respects, every program that I use (daily) on my Linux desktop is largely GTK based.
I used Evolution of Sylpheed for mail. I use MozillaFirebird for web browsing. I use XChat for IRC. I use Pan for newsgroups. I use Nautilus for file management. I use XMMS for music. I use MPlayer for video. I use GIMP for image editing.
And every single app is GTK based. Granted, two of these still use older GTK libraries, but everything is still uniform on my machine. I dn't mind KDE, but I have no need for QT based apps because everything that I use is GTK based. These are pretty standard (and very funtional) tools that are found by default on most Linux desktop installs.
A uniform look is important, but in most respects, each of the two standard desktops has a large selection of tools that do the job quite well, and look good while doing it.
Lack of uniformity among desktops isn't stopping companies from writing software, or manufacturers from making drivers for their hardware.
On the contrary... The Linux userbase keeps growing at amazing rates. That alone will gain support from companies that use it *themselves* to develop products for you and the rest of the Windows using world.
You're truly blind if you think that free software has to follow the same model of commercial software, in order to be successful. And if company X doesn't write us a program, or fails to write some drivers for their scanner, we'll hack it ourselves. We've always done it in the past... Hell; commercial drivers typically use backends that the *community wrote*.
There's currently no shortage of a geek-base for programming Linux applications. If a company doesn't wish to jump on the bandwagon, then that's too bad. Eventually, however, they'll have to do something, or risk obsolescense (e.g. SCO).
I'm quite happy with the great number of supported devices that there are right now. Can you name any, off of the top of your head, that actually matter? And if you can, is there not an alternative that is well supported? I certainly can't think of many.
If you create a standardized desktop, then someone will just write something else.
UnitedLinux stuff already uses KDE in favor of Gnome. RedHat uses Gnome in favor of KDE. Both projects have different goals. Both projects have pros and cons.
There is nothing wrong with having different desktops. Do Java apps look like Windows apps when they run on the Windows platform? No. Does a GTK app look like a Windows app when running on the Windows platform? No.
There are legitimate reasons to use QT instead of GTK. Some people use QT for ease of porting to multiple platforms. On the other side of things, GTK apps have a less restrictive license for commercial software. There are benefits to each.
The primary dektops on Linux are based on these two toolkits. You don't have to be running either dektop to use any of the programs. Shoot, you can open a terminal in X (by itself) without a desktop manager, and the programs will still work.
The only reason that it might be useful to have a uniform desktop is for usabililty across platforms. However, so many variations of these desktops come from all of the different distributions. You'd essentially have to "clone" every Linux distribution to have it standardized.
Many open source software programmers aren't writing their programs for the average user. They are writing free alternatives to commercial programs, and generally are writing them because there is no such program that is available on the platform. They are writing them because they feel that there is a need for such a program, because, perhaps, they would like to be able to use such a program. Functionality comes first.
And really... Why should they write them for the average user? The average user has Windows. The average user has MacOS. If the average user wishes to use Linux, they have plenty of options that better cater to their needs. A Mandrake, Lycoris, Suse, or Lindows install will best handle their needs. But, the average user is not going to install icewm (as this goon noted in the article). Why would they?
The writer's comments about "weather or not software will work" are pointless. You don't have to be running Gnome to allow have Opera (QT based) work. You can run Mozilla (GTK w/custom XML) on top of ther QT based KDE. Merely having libraries is all you need. The UI can be whatever the user wants to use. I've not found an exception to this. Sure, things may not look uniform, but that's because QT and GTK (and others) use different libraries for skinning and such. They do, however, work.
As far as I am concerned, the typical "rules" of the "average user" do not apply on free platforms. We write software for our needs. We share it with you as well. Most of us, dispite having some dislikes for Microsoft, don't care if Linux dominates the desktop. If the software doesn't suit your needs, then you're probably using the wrong tool for the job (there are plenty of reasons to use Windows). We want choices though. We won't make your mind up for you, and we don't want to. If that's what you want, then you're using the wrong tool for the job.
Go to Redmond to have someone tell you what you should want.
Number 3 is a really important aspect that Windows users don't seem to understand. Windows fans always use the "If Linux was more widely used" excuse, not knowing exactly how the multi-user Linux system works. It's obviously not 100% foolproof, but it does make an extreme difference.
NT is capable of locking down capabilities between users, but do most places run their machine that way? No. They've created a bunch of users that have grown used to having the ability to destroy an entire drive with one mouse click. With Linux, things aren't that way, but it does produce another layer for users that want to write to certain things (but normally only when software is installed, with very few exceptions.)
Most people never need root access for anything other than installing programs, and root should normally only be used for that. It's a model that users can learn, if (when) they migrate to a more traditional UNIX-like OS.
Considering that Linux or UNIX runs almost 70% of web servers out there, then it depends on what you mean by "the biggie". Linux will not likely fall victim to things like Outlook Viruses, Word Macros, or IExplore holes because of the nature of its permissions systems. However, give someone an OS like Lindows, and then it's just as exploitable as Windows is.
In general, I'd say that Linux isn't likely to be effected by the same things as Windows, regardless of the userbase... Assuming the distrobutions keep its proper permissions systems intact. But there is always a chance of some DOS attack on some service that is running. Lots of Linux machines come with Apaache, ProFTP, or some other Internet daemon running out of the box. It's a good idea to shut these things off and firewall the machine. Desktop distributions, like Lycoris, don't have these things, and they still keep the root permissions systems intact (unlike Lindows). So, aside from Lindows, it could be assumed that most of the standard desktop systems are relatively safe if they don't run any server software.
With Linux, however, you don't have to wait for Microsoft to determine weather or not you need a fix. Every time something major has popped up, a fix has been had in a matter of hours, at best. I'm certainly not worried. No machine is unhackable, but I know which are more exploitable than others.
My card has dual DSPs. The Crystal CS4630 is actually actually a CS4297A and a secondary AC97 CS4294 chip. This is typical of cards like the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, Videologic Sonic Fury, and Hercules Gamesurround series.
However, I believe that the OSS/Commercial drivers can handle multiple cards at the same time.
I purchased my 4-Front OSS driver set because I use only Linux, and I'm serious about getting the most out of my card. I see that you'd feel differently about some things, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to get what you want.
If Creative was more interested in developing more feature-rich drivers for their cards in Linux (they've stopped assisting with OSS driver development some time agao), then we'd probably not be having this conversation. EAX isn't exactly the best documented API, from a non-commercial developer standpoint. It's not like some of us can just pick up EAX documentation and implent it into our drivers. What you don't realize is that EAX *is* largely software based. Just as OpenAL's 3D capabilities (and other features) are.
I'm just not certain how one would benefit by "ruining" MP3s with some form of EAX effects. Just what do you use it for? EAX is most useful (in my opinion) for gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
I would LOVE to see a 3D remake of FF IV or FF VI, as long as they could keep the dialogue and story intact for the most part. I wouldn't mind a music synthesis upgrade as well, as long as it wasn't butchered.
Such a game would really show us how an RPG could stand the test of time. It would be much easier to compare it to a newer games, like FFX. Which one would come out on top if FFIV had the graphics of FFX?
Do your really think that any of these "unbiased" sources of "information" are really going to pay someone to write something bad about Squaresoft? I seriously doubt it. Square could paint a turd gold and everyone would claim to love it.
I kinda liked Mystic Quest. Sure, it was simple, but there was some mildly entertaining stuff in that game. The FF Legend Game Boy titles (SaGa games, really), were terrible... Final Fantasy Adventure was quite a lot of fun though, and was a great prequel to Secret of Mana.
Agreed. I love 4 and 6 so much, that I can't decide which is my favorite. I still own the original carts (along with Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana). I purchased my Playstation in 1997 so that I could enjoy FF7. In many ways, I did enjoy the seventh game, but there was something about it that just bothered me. The characters lacked the development of those in the old games. Character designs became cookie-cutter from one game to the next. Sure, the series has evolved. But it's lost a lot more than it has gained. I've played the last 3 games quite a bit and I thought that they were totally weak. Same goes for Chrono Cross and Legend of Mana. The Square franchises have really gone downhill over the last 4 years. The only real hope that I have is that their merge with Enix might bring back some of the teams that really knew how to work wonders with RPG design. The two companies can really use on another. Square needs to come back closer to the basics and Enix (in many ways) needs to start exploring some new territory. It's a perfect match. I have my hopes high for Crystal Chronicles. You couldn't pay me to take FF X2.
Some of us are vegetarians for the health benefits. Some of us could care less about the animal rights stuff.
Your analogy makes no sense.
It's quite likely that they are protecting their customers because they wouldn't have these customers of their high-speed online services without the need to download large files. Most of the large files are video and music. There are a larger portion of cable Internet users than DSL users. I'm guessing that SBC is doing all they can do to keep the customers of their DSL service. So, I suppose that they could be trying to improve their image, but if they didn't then nobody would have any need for them.
Epiphany is not a required install. It's merely a UI that builds on top of gecko libraries. Thus, it's not integrated.
Not the ivory backscratcher. He'll be able to buy a new bling-bling chalice for those pimpin' videos.
In case you didn't notice, the chalice is all the rage in rap videos these days. You aren't pimp unless you have one.
What bitrate were the MP3s? I'd join a subscription service, but I'm afraid of poor quality.
Why do you assume that I live in the US? I merely think that it's a shame that it's only available in the UK. I could live in Asia, for all you know.
Linux and UNIX users can view the film. Its players have no problem with the WMV file format.
My problem is that they state that you need to be based in the UK to view the film. I don't live in the UK. What's the hang-up here? Is it because of the payment system that they are using?
It's not Linux that is my problem, it's that they aren't treating the Internet like the global village that it really is.
About 3 months ago, I wrote an e-mail to Dell to ask them if I could buy a computer without Windows. They didn't even respond to me.
I'll be building my own, thank you. But this is a great choice for companies that need a lot of inexpensive computers that don't run Windows.
That's actually a pretty cool skin. I don't normally use MPlayer skins, but I'm going to give this one a shot. Thanks!
Unless you require a scrollbar to navigate a movie, MPlayer generally works well when you associate it with Nautilus. I double-click on a thumbnail for a movie (generated by Gnome-Thumbnail-Factory) and MPlayer launches with the movie. I run it without the GUI though, so I merely use the arrow keys to navigate the movie, SPACE to pause, Q to quit.
It's true though, that MPlayer's GUI is sucky. I wish that they'd just use a standard GTK based deal, and not some rediculous XMMS/Winamp sort of skin, which by the way also drastically increases the CPU load when playing video files. I've thought of writing a better GUI for MPlayer, but I just don't know enough about GTK programming. Lumiere is a great project, but I've not been able to get it to compile because it is beta code (and is for some reason heavily dependant on specific system configurations and file locations).
Older versions of the standard Windows Media Player (default installs with the OS) had SVCD support, if I'm not mistaken. However, you had to direct it to the MPEG file on the CD. It was a roundabout method of playing VCDs and SVCDs, but it worked well (in my experience).
I've found that MPlayer is more stable than XINE, and it plays video with a lot less CPU load. However, on one occasion, I had to use a XINElib based player (Totem) to play a really messed up WMV file that didn't seem to be properly encoded. Totem (XINElib) could play it, but MPlayer gave no video, even though they were using the same codecs from the same directory.
MPlayer is my default player of choice, without the GUI (I prefer to use the arrowkeys for file navigation). It's associated in Nautilus to play all of my files. However, I keep Totem as my backup, though I've only had to use it once (in two years). I've found XINElib stuff to hard-lock my machine on multiple occasions, though in recent tests its been much more stable.
One final thing about MPlayer. It, and its encoder, MEncoder, are great programs. You can have MPlayer send the output of an audi file to a raw PCM or WAV format, and convert it into OGG or MP3, so that you can play the files back in XMMS or something. I used it recently to convert some WMVs into OGG, for testing, and it sounded great. I couldn't notice any real difference between the files, and all of my Linux players could then handle the file.
I don't understand. MPlayer *does* actually play files. It can stream any normal format as well. It plays all files except really obscure and useless formats.
This is true. However, in the same respects, every program that I use (daily) on my Linux desktop is largely GTK based.
I used Evolution of Sylpheed for mail.
I use MozillaFirebird for web browsing.
I use XChat for IRC.
I use Pan for newsgroups.
I use Nautilus for file management.
I use XMMS for music.
I use MPlayer for video.
I use GIMP for image editing.
And every single app is GTK based. Granted, two of these still use older GTK libraries, but everything is still uniform on my machine. I dn't mind KDE, but I have no need for QT based apps because everything that I use is GTK based. These are pretty standard (and very funtional) tools that are found by default on most Linux desktop installs.
A uniform look is important, but in most respects, each of the two standard desktops has a large selection of tools that do the job quite well, and look good while doing it.
Lack of uniformity among desktops isn't stopping companies from writing software, or manufacturers from making drivers for their hardware.
On the contrary... The Linux userbase keeps growing at amazing rates. That alone will gain support from companies that use it *themselves* to develop products for you and the rest of the Windows using world.
You're truly blind if you think that free software has to follow the same model of commercial software, in order to be successful. And if company X doesn't write us a program, or fails to write some drivers for their scanner, we'll hack it ourselves. We've always done it in the past... Hell; commercial drivers typically use backends that the *community wrote*.
There's currently no shortage of a geek-base for programming Linux applications. If a company doesn't wish to jump on the bandwagon, then that's too bad. Eventually, however, they'll have to do something, or risk obsolescense (e.g. SCO).
I'm quite happy with the great number of supported devices that there are right now. Can you name any, off of the top of your head, that actually matter? And if you can, is there not an alternative that is well supported? I certainly can't think of many.
If you create a standardized desktop, then someone will just write something else.
UnitedLinux stuff already uses KDE in favor of Gnome. RedHat uses Gnome in favor of KDE. Both projects have different goals. Both projects have pros and cons.
There is nothing wrong with having different desktops. Do Java apps look like Windows apps when they run on the Windows platform? No. Does a GTK app look like a Windows app when running on the Windows platform? No.
There are legitimate reasons to use QT instead of GTK. Some people use QT for ease of porting to multiple platforms. On the other side of things, GTK apps have a less restrictive license for commercial software. There are benefits to each.
The primary dektops on Linux are based on these two toolkits. You don't have to be running either dektop to use any of the programs. Shoot, you can open a terminal in X (by itself) without a desktop manager, and the programs will still work.
The only reason that it might be useful to have a uniform desktop is for usabililty across platforms. However, so many variations of these desktops come from all of the different distributions. You'd essentially have to "clone" every Linux distribution to have it standardized.
Many open source software programmers aren't writing their programs for the average user. They are writing free alternatives to commercial programs, and generally are writing them because there is no such program that is available on the platform. They are writing them because they feel that there is a need for such a program, because, perhaps, they would like to be able to use such a program. Functionality comes first.
And really... Why should they write them for the average user? The average user has Windows. The average user has MacOS. If the average user wishes to use Linux, they have plenty of options that better cater to their needs. A Mandrake, Lycoris, Suse, or Lindows install will best handle their needs. But, the average user is not going to install icewm (as this goon noted in the article). Why would they?
The writer's comments about "weather or not software will work" are pointless. You don't have to be running Gnome to allow have Opera (QT based) work. You can run Mozilla (GTK w/custom XML) on top of ther QT based KDE. Merely having libraries is all you need. The UI can be whatever the user wants to use. I've not found an exception to this. Sure, things may not look uniform, but that's because QT and GTK (and others) use different libraries for skinning and such. They do, however, work.
As far as I am concerned, the typical "rules" of the "average user" do not apply on free platforms. We write software for our needs. We share it with you as well. Most of us, dispite having some dislikes for Microsoft, don't care if Linux dominates the desktop. If the software doesn't suit your needs, then you're probably using the wrong tool for the job (there are plenty of reasons to use Windows). We want choices though. We won't make your mind up for you, and we don't want to. If that's what you want, then you're using the wrong tool for the job.
Go to Redmond to have someone tell you what you should want.
Number 3 is a really important aspect that Windows users don't seem to understand. Windows fans always use the "If Linux was more widely used" excuse, not knowing exactly how the multi-user Linux system works. It's obviously not 100% foolproof, but it does make an extreme difference.
NT is capable of locking down capabilities between users, but do most places run their machine that way? No. They've created a bunch of users that have grown used to having the ability to destroy an entire drive with one mouse click. With Linux, things aren't that way, but it does produce another layer for users that want to write to certain things (but normally only when software is installed, with very few exceptions.)
Most people never need root access for anything other than installing programs, and root should normally only be used for that. It's a model that users can learn, if (when) they migrate to a more traditional UNIX-like OS.
Considering that Linux or UNIX runs almost 70% of web servers out there, then it depends on what you mean by "the biggie". Linux will not likely fall victim to things like Outlook Viruses, Word Macros, or IExplore holes because of the nature of its permissions systems. However, give someone an OS like Lindows, and then it's just as exploitable as Windows is.
In general, I'd say that Linux isn't likely to be effected by the same things as Windows, regardless of the userbase... Assuming the distrobutions keep its proper permissions systems intact. But there is always a chance of some DOS attack on some service that is running. Lots of Linux machines come with Apaache, ProFTP, or some other Internet daemon running out of the box. It's a good idea to shut these things off and firewall the machine. Desktop distributions, like Lycoris, don't have these things, and they still keep the root permissions systems intact (unlike Lindows). So, aside from Lindows, it could be assumed that most of the standard desktop systems are relatively safe if they don't run any server software.
With Linux, however, you don't have to wait for Microsoft to determine weather or not you need a fix. Every time something major has popped up, a fix has been had in a matter of hours, at best. I'm certainly not worried. No machine is unhackable, but I know which are more exploitable than others.
My card has dual DSPs. The Crystal CS4630 is actually actually a CS4297A and a secondary AC97 CS4294 chip. This is typical of cards like the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, Videologic Sonic Fury, and Hercules Gamesurround series.
However, I believe that the OSS/Commercial drivers can handle multiple cards at the same time.
I purchased my 4-Front OSS driver set because I use only Linux, and I'm serious about getting the most out of my card. I see that you'd feel differently about some things, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to get what you want.
If Creative was more interested in developing more feature-rich drivers for their cards in Linux (they've stopped assisting with OSS driver development some time agao), then we'd probably not be having this conversation. EAX isn't exactly the best documented API, from a non-commercial developer standpoint. It's not like some of us can just pick up EAX documentation and implent it into our drivers. What you don't realize is that EAX *is* largely software based. Just as OpenAL's 3D capabilities (and other features) are.
I'm just not certain how one would benefit by "ruining" MP3s with some form of EAX effects. Just what do you use it for? EAX is most useful (in my opinion) for gaming.