you seem to find it difficult to accept what i'm saying
Not at all. I understand your point: You are used to Windows and/or some Linux distro, thus find this system easy to use, and you think most people are like you. You're wrong on the last part, of course. So I do understand your point, but I think you don't understand mine. You probabbly don't want to, seeing how you intentionally confuse familiarity with ease-of-use and learnability, and how you continue to ignore efficiency of use. Which is okay, but makes further discussion useless - especially since you seem to hold some kind of grudge against Macs and the people who own them ("apple products look good and people who use them feel superior. that's it. that's the whole story").
Let me just point out that I do own neither an iPod nor an iPhone. I do own a MacBook Pro, but I also own a Ubuntu box and three computers running Windows. I use all of them regularly.
By the way, two last points: The Shell is called "Terminal" and can be found in Applications/Utilities. Also, your story sounds strange. Impossible to configure a static internet connection using the GUI? Did you try selecting it from the dropdown in Network settings?
apple is about making money. it does this by being fashionable.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's a non-sequitur - I never claimed Apple didn't want to make money. Of course they do. They're a corporation. Second, it's only partially right. If all Apple did was being fashionable, they'd be dead next season. Apple's main draw is not that they are fashionable (although currently they clearly are). Their main draw is that their top priority is to design for humans. And I don't mean "design" only in a "look pretty" way, but also in a "works the way I expect it to" way.
an example, the last time i used mac osx i had great difficulty doing the simplest of tasks (starting applications, saving files etc.).
You are seriously telling me that you "had great difficulty" double-clicking on applications and selecting "File -> Save" from a menu?
you can probably explain to me in two sentences why "the apple way" is better than the "way other systems use".
I can explain it to you in zero sentences. watch this.
Sure, if you're used to Windows, some Mac interface conventions seem weird at first. For example, why is the menu bar at the top? The answer is Fitt's Law, but if you're used to a menu bar inside windows, you may not care that the one at the top is technically better. Nevertheless, objectively, you should be able to see that the amount of thought and polish that goes into Apple's UI design has no rivals. No cell phone works as well as the iPhone. Few MP3 players can compete with the iPod in the area of usability and efficiency. No OS is as consistent and well thought out as Mac OS X.
my point is, i would have to learn it. it's not as if the ability to use os x is a native trait of being human while the ability to use windows xp (or one of its close relatives like gnome or kde) is acquired behaviour.
Of course. But this is a very weird point to make. It almost seems as if you claimed that there were only two possible options: Either something has to be learned, or humans are born with the knowledge. However, there is a huge amount of grey area between the two. Macs are easier to learn than Windows PCs. And even if the difficulty did not matter, you're still ignoring efficiency. If something takes 17 steps in Symbian on a P990i, and 7 steps on a Palm, the Palm is the better system, even if both were equally hard to learn.
so basically, you have a mobile phone which has wlan capability but the configuration routine is clumsy. the iphone has wlan capability and you find the configuration routine easier. i fail to see anything truly revolutionary about that, and certainly nothing which would justify thousands of people standing in line on the launch day.
If you fail to see why people stand in line to buy something that is easier to use, then I hope that you don't design user interfaces for a living. Leave it to those who care.
People use their cell phones dozens of times each day. If cell phone A annoys you each time, but cell phone B works as it should each time, then cell phone B is easily worth 600 bucks to a lot of people. And as I said, this forces other manufacturers to follow suit, so even if you don't want to buy an iPhone, you'll profit in the end because the iPhone improves the situation for everyone.
that is my question, why did these people stand in line waiting for the iphone? the only answer i can see is, they saw the iphone as a fashion accessory.
I don't believe that this is the only answer you can see. I believe that this is the only answer that fits your preconceptions. Obviously, you wouldn't want to see any answers that lead to a cognitive dissonance, would you?
The simple fact is that most people are annoyed at their cell phones. This is an item
Yes it has the touchscreen for it. Too bad it doesn't have the other 12 buttons that a DS needs...
A lot of games don't use the buttons at all or can be played without them. A bigger issue is the fact that many of the DS UI elements are small - too small to hit with a finger.
from what i can see, the iphone is a fashion accessory being hyped beyond all proportion to its ability.
I think you're missing what the iPhone's "ability" is. A lot of people hate their cell phones. Personally, I own a P990i, a phone which has about 10 times more features than the iPhone. Unfortunately, I don't use them. For example, connecting to a wireless network requires that I complete a wizard with lots of strange questions that the phone could answer itself if the programmers had spent a bit more time on usabilty. Making sure the phone connects using the WiFi network instead of the 3G connection means that I have to go through several utterly non-obvious steps. In fact, when my phone died a few months back and I had to start from scratch because all of my data was deleted, I didn't even bother to set up the WiFi functionality again.
At first, I installed a ton of apps. I love SCUMMVM, and it runs on the phone. Unfortunately, it kills the battery within few hours, so it's essentially useless, and after my accident, I did not bother to install any applications at all.
Entering a new task into the calendar takes an astonishing 17 steps. It's a miracle how they managed to make this so bad, considering that they could simply have copied the Palm's UI, which works perfectly well. The Palm, of course, has a whole host of different issues, such as the fact that it can't really multitask.
My basic point is that I've never had a cell phone I was happy with. In fact, I hated all of my cell phones to varying degrees. The iPhone's main "ability" is to not be hated by its users.
i do also happen to think the world would be better if it failed.
That is a really, really narrow view. The iPhone is great for everyone, even for those who don't care. Even before the iPhone's launch, Palm responded by hiring former Apple people to work on their UI. Other manufacturers will be forced to do the same: Right now, they are selling their phones to the carriers. Apple will force them to start thinking about the actual users, and what they might want.
Even open alternatives will profit. I don't think Ubuntu would be where it is today were it not for Mac OS X. Apple is the main driving force in making digital stuff usable. They are pushing everyone else ahead. Even if you don't agree with their politics, even if you don't use any of their stuff, you still profit tremendously from their existence and from their work.
The advantage is not that they do not die over time, but that you don't have to discharge and fully recharge them regularly. Originally, the term "memory effect" refered to (I quote Wikipedia) "one very specific situation in which certain NiCd batteries gradually lose their maximum energy capacity if they are repeatedly recharged after being only partially discharged."
Li-ion batteries don't suffer from that issue, but they still do deteriorate.
The PS3 is way too expensive. The 360 is too expensive. Even the Wii is a bit too expensive - although it's still selling so well that price cuts aren't necessary.
Consoles are basically toys. People view them as toys. They should not cost more than US$200. 200 bucks is, I think, the sweet spot for mass market acceptance. If you want to be the next PS2, you got to get the price below 200 bucks.
One thing I hate is the mentality of "it just works". Which is great, if it does, but when it doesn't, well, you're shit out of luck because we didn't even bother putting any UI components in to help you diagnose what the problem is, because there's not supposed to be any problems!
I think it's kind of funny that many Windows users seem to think that you can't "debug" Macs. I attribute this misconception to a lack of experience with Macs. Obviously, you can diagnose problems with Mac OS X, and in my experience, it's a lot easier to do than with Windows. I don't know a lot of Mac users who routinely reinstall Mac OS X, but I know a lot of Windows users who routinely reinstall Windows - despite the fact that reinstalling Mac OS X is really simple and can even be done while keeping all of your data (select the "Archive and Install" option while installing).
So no, you're wrong. Diagnosing a problem in Mac OS X is really simple using the logs all applications and system components write.
It's amazing when someone calls his own country a "banana republic".
Actually, most people living in western, progressive countries are very critical towards their own country. There are a few countries where stupid jingoism is rampant, and interestingly, these are often the among the more backwards ones.
I'd say being critical towards your own country is one of the signs of a progressive, enlightened society, and an important part of a working democracy.
The first run NES was a piece of crap hardware they were forced to recall.
Actually, I'd chalk this up as a plus for Nintendo. Unlike Microsoft, they didn't fuck around. They recalled all NES consoles, took the time to figure out what was wrong, and then re-launched it. Microsoft could learn a thing or two from Nintendo here.
If you don't like DRM Ninetendo has had it since the NES (pretty mild lock out pins).
All console manufacturers try to do this because they make money licensing games.
For a time any company could only release 5 games a year irregardless of quality. During the NES/SNES era they were no better then Sony in regards to arrogance. If you wanted to sell games you had to play by their rules they were fairly arbitrary in their censorship and demands before licencing.
Yeah, I mentioned that. They censored games and screwed with third-parties. It's somewhat understandable given that they wanted to avoid the 2600's fate, but it's still pretty evil.
They also litigated third party unlicenced vendors into oblivion similiar to what Sony did to Lik Sang.
Never heard of that. Sounds interesting. Any sources?
Even so, as I said, all of the things you've mentioned happened a long time ago, mostly during the NES and SNES era.
While I would agree that Microsoft isn't better than Sony, Nintendo's faults are comparatively minor. They censored games during the NES/SNES times, and they forced games to not come out on other consoles during that time. But other than that, I can't remember a lot of bad things they did, especially not during the last decade or so.
They had two mediocre car games that even included plastic steering wheels. So yeah, Ubi invested a lot in the Wii, even if most of their launch games were, well... a bit crappy.
The 360 and PS3 are really no more a leap than any other generation, even if the companies have been acting like they are.
If you're saying that the difference in power and graphics between the PS1 and the PS2 is not smaller than the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, then I would agree. In fact, I think the difference between PS1 and PS2 is bigger than the difference between PS2 and PS3. But what really killed the 360 and the PS3 (well, not killed, but hurt them a lot) is the difference in price to their predecessors.
they like what the companies are preaching, and they want to be a part of it.
I would say that this is the excuse, and the actual products are the reason. All these people who got addicted to Wii Bowling couldn't give a rat's ass about what Nintendo is preaching. They think the Wii is fun, and they buy one.
They are a business. If people want to buy something and you can make it, you make it.
Maybe somebody would if EA didn't own exclusive licenses for many of the important sports franchises.
Frankly, I don't understand why people defend companies like EA with the "they are a business" defense. Why in the world would I care? I don't criticise them for making money, or for being a business, I criticise them because I don't like their games and their updates are seriously lacking, and the fact that they are a business doesn't make this any better.
Oh, stop with the mini-games flamebaits. The Wii has more FPS than mini-games. If anything, it could use a bunch more mini-games, because Wii Sports, Wario, Super Monkey Ball and Rayman are slowly getting old. Where's Wii Sports 2?
For the record, while writing this rant, I was contemplating genuine female leads. Many were from LucasArts adventure games (The Dig, Fate of Atlantis) and other adventure games as well.
I think Beyond Good & Evil is another good example of a strong female lead that is not oversexed. And probably Trace Memory. And I think Eternal Darkness had some strong female characters, but I can't really remember too much. Zelda is often pretty well-developed and multi-layered. You're right, these are mostly adventure-style games... It's a pity that there aren't more well-developed female leads.
On the other hand, some bad examples are Ico and P.N.03, I'd say.
Men are best suited to hitting people with things, where as women are generally more agile and are better suited to using lighter weapons and avoiding direct confrontation
But the real-life differnce between the genders is clearly not as big as portrayed in games. I'm pretty big at 187 cm and around 80 kg, but even I know a few females who would probably put up a good fight against me on strength alone. In games like Street Fighter though, females are a lot weaker and faster than most males...
I frankly have little interest in ending this as any more of a pissing match than it already is, and aside from that I'm relatively freshly out of college and my current work is under NDA, so I couldn't reveal it anyhow.
Right.
The fact is, most everything you've stated boils down to either something which sounds suspiciously like KB/M-snobbery or flawed logic.
Yeeeah. I can see how your argument works. Frankly, I'm not sure why you decided to defend such a weird position, but I'm relieved to see you've given up.
Any reasonably intelligent person, personal bias aside, can deduce the reality of the situation by judging the arguments on either side by their logical merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. I understand your point: You are used to Windows and/or some Linux distro, thus find this system easy to use, and you think most people are like you. You're wrong on the last part, of course. So I do understand your point, but I think you don't understand mine. You probabbly don't want to, seeing how you intentionally confuse familiarity with ease-of-use and learnability, and how you continue to ignore efficiency of use. Which is okay, but makes further discussion useless - especially since you seem to hold some kind of grudge against Macs and the people who own them ("apple products look good and people who use them feel superior. that's it. that's the whole story").
Let me just point out that I do own neither an iPod nor an iPhone. I do own a MacBook Pro, but I also own a Ubuntu box and three computers running Windows. I use all of them regularly.
By the way, two last points: The Shell is called "Terminal" and can be found in Applications/Utilities. Also, your story sounds strange. Impossible to configure a static internet connection using the GUI? Did you try selecting it from the dropdown in Network settings?
apple is about making money. it does this by being fashionable.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's a non-sequitur - I never claimed Apple didn't want to make money. Of course they do. They're a corporation. Second, it's only partially right. If all Apple did was being fashionable, they'd be dead next season. Apple's main draw is not that they are fashionable (although currently they clearly are). Their main draw is that their top priority is to design for humans. And I don't mean "design" only in a "look pretty" way, but also in a "works the way I expect it to" way.
an example, the last time i used mac osx i had great difficulty doing the simplest of tasks (starting applications, saving files etc.).
You are seriously telling me that you "had great difficulty" double-clicking on applications and selecting "File -> Save" from a menu?
you can probably explain to me in two sentences why "the apple way" is better than the "way other systems use".
I can explain it to you in zero sentences. watch this.
Sure, if you're used to Windows, some Mac interface conventions seem weird at first. For example, why is the menu bar at the top? The answer is Fitt's Law, but if you're used to a menu bar inside windows, you may not care that the one at the top is technically better. Nevertheless, objectively, you should be able to see that the amount of thought and polish that goes into Apple's UI design has no rivals. No cell phone works as well as the iPhone. Few MP3 players can compete with the iPod in the area of usability and efficiency. No OS is as consistent and well thought out as Mac OS X.
my point is, i would have to learn it. it's not as if the ability to use os x is a native trait of being human while the ability to use windows xp (or one of its close relatives like gnome or kde) is acquired behaviour.
Of course. But this is a very weird point to make. It almost seems as if you claimed that there were only two possible options: Either something has to be learned, or humans are born with the knowledge. However, there is a huge amount of grey area between the two. Macs are easier to learn than Windows PCs. And even if the difficulty did not matter, you're still ignoring efficiency. If something takes 17 steps in Symbian on a P990i, and 7 steps on a Palm, the Palm is the better system, even if both were equally hard to learn.
so basically, you have a mobile phone which has wlan capability but the configuration routine is clumsy. the iphone has wlan capability and you find the configuration routine easier. i fail to see anything truly revolutionary about that, and certainly nothing which would justify thousands of people standing in line on the launch day.
If you fail to see why people stand in line to buy something that is easier to use, then I hope that you don't design user interfaces for a living. Leave it to those who care.
People use their cell phones dozens of times each day. If cell phone A annoys you each time, but cell phone B works as it should each time, then cell phone B is easily worth 600 bucks to a lot of people. And as I said, this forces other manufacturers to follow suit, so even if you don't want to buy an iPhone, you'll profit in the end because the iPhone improves the situation for everyone.
that is my question, why did these people stand in line waiting for the iphone? the only answer i can see is, they saw the iphone as a fashion accessory.
I don't believe that this is the only answer you can see. I believe that this is the only answer that fits your preconceptions. Obviously, you wouldn't want to see any answers that lead to a cognitive dissonance, would you?
The simple fact is that most people are annoyed at their cell phones. This is an item
A lot of games don't use the buttons at all or can be played without them. A bigger issue is the fact that many of the DS UI elements are small - too small to hit with a finger.
I think the two screens would easily fit on the iPhone's screen.
I think you're missing what the iPhone's "ability" is. A lot of people hate their cell phones. Personally, I own a P990i, a phone which has about 10 times more features than the iPhone. Unfortunately, I don't use them. For example, connecting to a wireless network requires that I complete a wizard with lots of strange questions that the phone could answer itself if the programmers had spent a bit more time on usabilty. Making sure the phone connects using the WiFi network instead of the 3G connection means that I have to go through several utterly non-obvious steps. In fact, when my phone died a few months back and I had to start from scratch because all of my data was deleted, I didn't even bother to set up the WiFi functionality again.
At first, I installed a ton of apps. I love SCUMMVM, and it runs on the phone. Unfortunately, it kills the battery within few hours, so it's essentially useless, and after my accident, I did not bother to install any applications at all.
Entering a new task into the calendar takes an astonishing 17 steps. It's a miracle how they managed to make this so bad, considering that they could simply have copied the Palm's UI, which works perfectly well. The Palm, of course, has a whole host of different issues, such as the fact that it can't really multitask.
My basic point is that I've never had a cell phone I was happy with. In fact, I hated all of my cell phones to varying degrees. The iPhone's main "ability" is to not be hated by its users.
i do also happen to think the world would be better if it failed.That is a really, really narrow view. The iPhone is great for everyone, even for those who don't care. Even before the iPhone's launch, Palm responded by hiring former Apple people to work on their UI. Other manufacturers will be forced to do the same: Right now, they are selling their phones to the carriers. Apple will force them to start thinking about the actual users, and what they might want.
Even open alternatives will profit. I don't think Ubuntu would be where it is today were it not for Mac OS X. Apple is the main driving force in making digital stuff usable. They are pushing everyone else ahead. Even if you don't agree with their politics, even if you don't use any of their stuff, you still profit tremendously from their existence and from their work.
The advantage is not that they do not die over time, but that you don't have to discharge and fully recharge them regularly. Originally, the term "memory effect" refered to (I quote Wikipedia) "one very specific situation in which certain NiCd batteries gradually lose their maximum energy capacity if they are repeatedly recharged after being only partially discharged."
Li-ion batteries don't suffer from that issue, but they still do deteriorate.
The PS2 launched at US$299.99.
The PS3 is way too expensive. The 360 is too expensive. Even the Wii is a bit too expensive - although it's still selling so well that price cuts aren't necessary.
Consoles are basically toys. People view them as toys. They should not cost more than US$200. 200 bucks is, I think, the sweet spot for mass market acceptance. If you want to be the next PS2, you got to get the price below 200 bucks.
Which is why a lot of people just hide the Dock.
the "menu at the top" costs me mouse movementWell, it may indeed cost you "mouse movement," but on the other hand, you gain time. Fitt's law, look it up.
More mouse movement does not equal more time used.
I think it's kind of funny that many Windows users seem to think that you can't "debug" Macs. I attribute this misconception to a lack of experience with Macs. Obviously, you can diagnose problems with Mac OS X, and in my experience, it's a lot easier to do than with Windows. I don't know a lot of Mac users who routinely reinstall Mac OS X, but I know a lot of Windows users who routinely reinstall Windows - despite the fact that reinstalling Mac OS X is really simple and can even be done while keeping all of your data (select the "Archive and Install" option while installing).
So no, you're wrong. Diagnosing a problem in Mac OS X is really simple using the logs all applications and system components write.
Actually, most people living in western, progressive countries are very critical towards their own country. There are a few countries where stupid jingoism is rampant, and interestingly, these are often the among the more backwards ones.
I'd say being critical towards your own country is one of the signs of a progressive, enlightened society, and an important part of a working democracy.
Actually, I'd chalk this up as a plus for Nintendo. Unlike Microsoft, they didn't fuck around. They recalled all NES consoles, took the time to figure out what was wrong, and then re-launched it. Microsoft could learn a thing or two from Nintendo here.
If you don't like DRM Ninetendo has had it since the NES (pretty mild lock out pins).All console manufacturers try to do this because they make money licensing games.
For a time any company could only release 5 games a year irregardless of quality. During the NES/SNES era they were no better then Sony in regards to arrogance. If you wanted to sell games you had to play by their rules they were fairly arbitrary in their censorship and demands before licencing.Yeah, I mentioned that. They censored games and screwed with third-parties. It's somewhat understandable given that they wanted to avoid the 2600's fate, but it's still pretty evil.
They also litigated third party unlicenced vendors into oblivion similiar to what Sony did to Lik Sang.Never heard of that. Sounds interesting. Any sources?
Even so, as I said, all of the things you've mentioned happened a long time ago, mostly during the NES and SNES era.
While I would agree that Microsoft isn't better than Sony, Nintendo's faults are comparatively minor. They censored games during the NES/SNES times, and they forced games to not come out on other consoles during that time. But other than that, I can't remember a lot of bad things they did, especially not during the last decade or so.
Well, you shouldn't be complaining, because Ice Hockey is clearly the best hockey game of all times :-)
I like your control scheme idea, though.
They had two mediocre car games that even included plastic steering wheels. So yeah, Ubi invested a lot in the Wii, even if most of their launch games were, well... a bit crappy.
If you're saying that the difference in power and graphics between the PS1 and the PS2 is not smaller than the difference between the PS2 and the PS3, then I would agree. In fact, I think the difference between PS1 and PS2 is bigger than the difference between PS2 and PS3. But what really killed the 360 and the PS3 (well, not killed, but hurt them a lot) is the difference in price to their predecessors.
Well, you won't have to wait long for a really cool FPS. Metroid should be coming out soon :-)
I would say that this is the excuse, and the actual products are the reason. All these people who got addicted to Wii Bowling couldn't give a rat's ass about what Nintendo is preaching. They think the Wii is fun, and they buy one.
EA said they wouldn't support the Wii? When was that?
Even Nintendo had no clue that the Wii would sell this well. They still can't keep up with demand, and they will not be able to keep up with demand until after Christmas. Nobody expected the Wii to become the social phenomenon that it is, even considering how well the DS did. I never thought it would fail as badly as people claimed, especially after the E3 where it was playable, but really, the Wii's success is unprecedented. If you compare the aligned launches of the PS2, the SNES and the Wii (some of the most successfull consoles of all time), the Wii handily beats them to a pulp.
Even those who expected the Wii to do ok or even do well could not have expected anything of this magnitude.
Maybe somebody would if EA didn't own exclusive licenses for many of the important sports franchises.
Frankly, I don't understand why people defend companies like EA with the "they are a business" defense. Why in the world would I care? I don't criticise them for making money, or for being a business, I criticise them because I don't like their games and their updates are seriously lacking, and the fact that they are a business doesn't make this any better.
Oh, stop with the mini-games flamebaits. The Wii has more FPS than mini-games. If anything, it could use a bunch more mini-games, because Wii Sports, Wario, Super Monkey Ball and Rayman are slowly getting old. Where's Wii Sports 2?
Most actors are ugly enough in stanrdard definition. Or so I heard :-)
I think Beyond Good & Evil is another good example of a strong female lead that is not oversexed. And probably Trace Memory. And I think Eternal Darkness had some strong female characters, but I can't really remember too much. Zelda is often pretty well-developed and multi-layered. You're right, these are mostly adventure-style games... It's a pity that there aren't more well-developed female leads.
On the other hand, some bad examples are Ico and P.N.03, I'd say.
But the real-life differnce between the genders is clearly not as big as portrayed in games. I'm pretty big at 187 cm and around 80 kg, but even I know a few females who would probably put up a good fight against me on strength alone. In games like Street Fighter though, females are a lot weaker and faster than most males...
Right.
The fact is, most everything you've stated boils down to either something which sounds suspiciously like KB/M-snobbery or flawed logic.Yeeeah. I can see how your argument works. Frankly, I'm not sure why you decided to defend such a weird position, but I'm relieved to see you've given up.
Any reasonably intelligent person, personal bias aside, can deduce the reality of the situation by judging the arguments on either side by their logical merits.I agree.