Given that the Mozilla/Firefox browsers have such an enormous codebase to be maintained and debugged would you recommend that the efforts of those developers be spent writing a window manager
No. That is why you use a "standard" Window Manager like MetaCity. It's intended to do the heavy lifting of screen layout while the application instructs the WM according to the agreed upon protocols.
Given that the Mozilla/Firefox browsers have such an enormous codebase to be maintained and debugged would you recommend that the efforts of those developers be spent writing a DE based on it?
Do I think that the Mozilla developers should do it as a mainline part of the Mozilla/Gecko codebase? No. Do I think it should be done as a separate project built on top of the Mozilla platform? Yes. The latter does not necessarily mean a reduction in the developer support for the Mozilla codebase, and may actually attract new developers to working on improving the platform.
Still, though, would you want a comprehensive network application such as a web browser to be directly integrated with the code and memory allocations which make up the display?
I do not understand this point. The Mozilla Platform is NOT a web browser. The Mozilla Platform is a collection of desktop and web technologies that can be used to construct a web browser. Or a variety of other applications. This is no different than the Win32 or Cocoa APIs, both of which contain support for Web Technologies in addition to standard desktop technologies. Thus Win32 systems have Internet Explorer (based on MSHTML renderer), Cocoa systems have Safari (based on WebKit renderer), and Mozilla systems have Firefox (based on Gecko renderer).
My understanding is that the underlying structure of the javascript environment is too rickety to ensure that an application built within it will ever be bulletproof.
Your understanding is incorrect. Javascript/ECMAScript is a full language limited only by its APIs. For XUL applications, Javascript apps have access to the complete XPCOM library; an API similar in concept to Win32 or Cocoa.
As touched upon in a recent discussion on a Slashdot book review, the primary issue with Javascript is that the majority of those who think they know how to program in it, do not.
Modern web browsers, IMHO, already have too much unrestricted access to the rest of the system. This can be configured away by the user but only at a severe cost to modern day functionality. Cookies are an illustration of this point: disabling cookies for an entire day would tank a normal daily network routine.
First off, this is neither here nor there. Issues affecting a desktop web browser do not relate to a desktop application unless it choses to provide web browser services. At that point, the standard issues with accessing network resources apply. It is up to the individual application to find a method of dealing with network security. Just as it is up to any network-enabled Windows or Mac application to deal with network security.
I appreciate that java, in and of itself, isn't slow but that the slowness is often brought about by layering the jvm on top of the already existent OS.
Incorrect. Java has surpassed C++ in a variety of benchmarks. Anyone who has paid attention to Java within the last 7 years is aware of these benchmarks. (Example) While perceived performance problems exist (e.g. slow startup, "feel" of GUI, etc.) the Virtual Machine itself is actually quite fast by virtue of runtime optimizations.
The jvm environment reminds me of the BASIC interpreter which the beloved C=64 provided in that it works like a jit compiler.
The C64 did not JIT the BASIC code. It is well known
It's not, "How are they going to pull that off?", it's "How are they pulling that off?". The system may still be in development, but it is very much up and running. It's not all that difficult to imagine when you realize that they wrote the JVM and the JIT in Java, then self-compiled the JVM using its own JIT. Link in a bootloader and a few hundred lines of assembly for hardware-access routines, and you have an executable OS for running Java. Feel free to download the source and see for yourself.
Why in the hell would I want a Mozilla desktop environment over Gnome, KDE, XFCE and others which have been doing a great job for a long time?
Choice? The entire point of OSS is to provide choice. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Just make a good fucking browser and stop trying to branch out.
The Mozilla Platform is a platform first, a browser second. That's why it took them so damn long to develop it in the first place. Modern web technologies actually demand that web browsers be application platforms. Mozilla takes it one step further by being a flexible platform for local applications as well as rich client applications.
When you look at FireFox, you see a web browser. But in truth, that is incidental. All you're really seeing is a XUL-based application. Which is why there are other popular applications like Thunderbird, Composer, Mozilla IRC, SunBird, etc. Should Mozilla also focus on making those applications the best Email/HTML Editor/IRC Client/Calendar applications and forget the platform they're developed on top of?
Good grief. The whole lot of you need a good whack upside the head to straighten you out.
XUL is not that slow. I don't know where you get this idea, but it's performance is more than acceptable for pretty much any GUI you might make. I don't recommend writing a video game in it, but that should go without saying.
ECMAScript/Javascript *is* slow. However, it's also just glue code. The time it takes to shunt a button press from the Javascript system to underlying C/C++ code is negligable.
Despite the slowness of Javascript due to interpretation (which is a feature, not a bug), it's more than fast enough to run a lot of applications. The FireFox GUI, for example, is a Javascript application sitting on top of the XUL/XPCOM system. Yet no one complains that their button presses are too slow.
Java is definitely NOT slow. I'm not going to open this can of worms again (you can search my 5,000 other posts on the topic), but I am going to point out that your example is so much FUD. JavaOS didn't fail because of its GUI, it failed because it wasn't a very good system. In fact, it wasn't actually a full desktop system. More of a rich client type of thing. Which is why the JNode folks are working on a fully modern OS written in 100% Java. Including the kernel and drivers.
MozCreator is still in development. However, the desktop hasn't been developed at all. So there's not much of an issue there, yet. Also, you can always use a generic IDE environment like JEdit until MozCreator is ready. (Seriously? IDEs are overrated anyway.)
VLC is about as high quality as you can get when it comes to video and multimedia support. It regularly shows Windows Media Player the door when a user tries both of them out. And some work has already been done to integrate VLC as a Mozilla plugin. Not that such a plugin is necessary. VLC would run on such a desktop system as-is. The only reason to bother integrating them is to create an embedable media player ala the GStreamer APIs. (GStreamer is also overrated.) Or they could just integrate with GStreamer and be done with it.
So there's no inherent blocks on either of those fronts. And if a Mozilla desktop were really to be created, you can be sure that additional tools and APIs would follow.:)
First off, it's not an OS. It's a Desktop Environment. ("Graphical Shell" in old skool parlance.) The Desktop Environment goes on top of the OS. Which could be Linux, FreeBSD, or even OpenSolaris.
Secondly, it's not that crazy of an idea. I've played around with the concept a bit myself. Both through the HTML engine and the XUL engine. The HTML engine makes more sense for "thin" (or "rich") applications that are downloaded on the fly and communicate with a server. The XUL makes more sense if you want a heavyweight desktop that can integrate with the X11 framework. Programs based on the XUL/XPCOM framework would use XULRunner to launch. All neat and tidy; though a bit of a pain to develop XPCOM interfaces between Javascript and C/C++.
The concept works because X11 is about as flexible as you can get for a desktop system. All you need is a Window Manager that recognizes standardized messages and Atoms (the X11 kind, not the Mozilla kind) and you can position, place, float, stick, minimize, or maximize any window you want pretty easily. So you throw a taskbar window out there to track the other windows, throw a start menu applet on there, have a file-browser application stuck as the Desktop, and you're pretty much ready to go.
XPCOM is even reasonably complete enough to where it provides services similar to the NeXT/Cocoa APIs. They'd need to be extended some if you wanted to support access to the complete environment (especially fixing that mess they have for File I/O), but it's a very workable base.
I don't think they're so much as "misinformed" as the really big companies (e.g. Lockheed, Boeing,... that's about it) feed so tightly off of NASA and the government that it really doesn't seem like they're private anymore.
As in, "bright enough to find a way to bypass company policies, but not bright enough to keep from getting caught."
He's already said that they don't prune the researchers like that. Which already makes his argument specious. It seems to me that someone who's not in your top talent who's managed to pull off a trick like this at least shows promise. So you're going to cut off any new talent or support talent you might have.
It's like saying, "I need my hand to drive, but it won't hurt anything if I cut off my fingers."
The really smart people that are talented and do research are usually given a setup that allows them to do the work they need in a separate environment from the rest of the company.
Oh, so you do let them past the restrictions? Officially sanctioned and everything, I see? So basically you're telling me that your best talent would have no trouble defeating your measures (as I surmised) so you don't even try to put them in place for them? Why don't you try putting those measures in place for the researchers, and see how long your company has top talent in that area?
If you are just a business programmer you don't get this because you can probably be replaced by someone with an H-1B visa.
I think that right there sums up your attitude nicely. You treat your researchers like royalty (as you should), but apparently have no problems firing any of the support staff that might be critical to the researcher's work. Because, you know, they're not smart. They're just duh codeded minkeys. Anyone who shows a smidge of ingenuity and talent by getting past your firewall restrictions must, by defintion, be stupider than the rest. Weed 'em out!
Remind me never to work for your company. Or hire you.
So you think that just throwing more resources at the project would improve it?
I love it when people put words into my mouth. Not.:-/
Time == Money
Therefore, if they need more time to get the single player to a "fun" state, then it's going to cost more money. Whereas if they've already got the multiplayer up and running, they can cheat on a lot of the game content by using HI rather than AI to do fun things like setup ambushes, provide a challenging dogfight, guard the embankments, etc.
You're telling me that your tpo talent is not computer literate enough to make childs play out of your proxy blocks? I would think you'd be hiring the smart people. You know, the ones who use computers (and even some custom programs) to do much of their research, simulation, and experiment tracking?
Computer knowledge is pretty prevasive in the sciences these days. It needs to be, otherwise the research doesn't get done. So as I said, way to rid yourself of talent.
Yes, A moderately bright young chap could proxy his way around the content filtering. We have had those moderately bright chaps get fired for doing it as well.
If you want to know what they should really do, read the second page of my latest blog article. I didn't realize it before, but it seems I came prepared for this article!:P
Well, ummm, yeah... but it has a C= logo on it! It's turtles all the way down!
You know what I just realized? My current sig suggests a business model that makes better use of the Commodore name than these guys are. What an interesting coincidence that ended up being.
...can we get hold of that machine emulator thingy separately and install it on our home box?
What, like this? I thought everyone knew about VICE? You can (legally!) get all the ROMs you want at C64.com. And if you want real C64 hardware, it costs less than $20. Oh, and you can mod it to your heart's desire without feeling bad about it.;-)
Lighten up a little, Batman. Nostalgia has a great purpose in life.
I fail to see the nastolgia in this. I have a Commodore 64 sitting at home. This new behometh looks nothing like it, nor does it evoke any sense of the original. Nor is it even close to the grace of the Amiga. So I'd say, "treading on memories and goodwill" is pretty close, wouldn't you?
We can always mod the case (make our own C-kin) and the internal cards at a later date. I'm guessing it's not all integrated.
Um. Okay?
It's a box. That's painted. If that appeals to you, good for you! To each their own. But it still has nothing to do with Commodore. It's just a label slapped on an unreleated company to generate press.
I'm not really sure why you're mentioning expansion cards. I have no doubt that these are internally expandable. Just like you'd expect any machine of these specs to be. I also have no doubt that they'll be incredibly expensive, and highly impractical when compared to what you could custom-build for less. *shrug*
You're right about the Giana Sisters C-kin. WTH?
Please do not take this as sarcasm, because it is not intended as such. Thank You! I was worried that I'd get jumped on for "not liking Japanamation" or something screwy like that. My only concern is that the case design shown is not the Giana Sisters. That looks more like Pokemon with a new name slapped on it.
Ok, I'm back. Looking at the "Gravel" (who names this stuff?), I'm much more impressed by it than I am their PC offerings. The CNet article shows a very compact device that appears to be well suited to portable television applications. I must say that I'm impressed. At least with the form factor and control scheme. The memory size seems to be a bit of a show-stopper, though. It doesn't take much to fill up 2 GB (or even 4 GB) of storage. With iPod videos starting at 30GB, this thing looks woefully small for the task.
Of course, that's something that can always be fixed in future revisions. If it's going to fail in the marketplace, it will be because it lacks content. No media player ever sells without content. And with Apple sewing up the downloadable television/movie market, I'm not sure where that leaves the Gravel. (Groveling, perhaps?) It's a neat device irrespective of its Commodore branding, but I sincerely hope that The New Commodore(TM) has some content distribution deals in the works.
The high-end XX packs enough grunt to make an Alienware machine run to its deformed alien mum.
Alienware is not a serious competitor. At least not any longer. They're just another Dell brand.
Also, it's probably worth noting that the really high end systems are often hand-built. That way you can get both the hardware you want, and the case design you want. Many of the 'Gaming PCs' tend to be targeted at the market of wannabes who have too much money and not enough sense.
Commodore uses what it calls a 'revolutionary painting process' to make them look pretty damn gorgeous.
I'm so sorry, am I missing something here? Because "pretty damn gorgeous" is not how I'd describe these machines. "Pretty damn hideous" is a bit closer. "Treading on someone else's memories and goodwill to make a buck" is even better. "Looking li-"
OMFG! What the hell is that Giana Sisters skin!?!?! ('scuse me, C-Kin)
Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.
I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less. After all the trouble that Microsoft has gone through to convince the US Feds and EU committees that they "innovate", I can't help but wonder if a flying chair isn't in this guy's future.
I would definitely include the most-creative of the single-player games from the 80s in that list
There were definitely some good games of the 80's. However, they didn't quite get that "Wow" impact until the 90's. You know, the impact you got just starting the game and taking in the movie-like intros before jumping into the fray/cockpit/story/whatever. Origin was probably the company that most pushed the idea that a great game and a great looking game are not mutually exclusive. That idea was later picked up by other studios like Westwood, who went on to create wonderful games wrapped in wonderful and immersive visuals.
Now those studios are gone. All gone. *sniff* Thanks a lump, EA. >:-(
AKAImBatman spoke to Slashdot this week, commenting that Microsoft's CEO is 'insane,' and the company has few successful businesses outside of Windows and Office. He referred to Balmer's stage antics as 'cute.' 'I don't really know that yelling "Developers" and doing your own thing on the stage creates value.' AKAImBatman went on complain that, in general, competition for good stage presenters has become an issue. Even companies like SCO are looking for skilled showmen, making the HR fight between the two companies that much more challenging.
Ok, joking aside, am I the only one who finds Balmer's complaint a bit hypocritical? It's true that Microsoft has incredible sums of cash. However, Windows and Office are pretty much the only things making Microsoft that cash. Nearly every other portion of the company either contributes very little to the bottom line, or actually loses Microsoft money. I imagine that's part of the reason why Microsoft keeps bundling extra software services with Windows: At least it raises the value of the software package. (In theory, anyway.)
That being said, I am going to (*gasp*) agree with him on one point. Having a bunch of programmers sitting around does not accomplish anything. They have to be in a full-on creative environment to do the truly impressive stuff. I think that the environment is slowly dissolving as Google loses it cohesion as a tight-knit company. They're growing incredibly fast, and I'm not sure they're really getting a good return on that growth. Obviously, only those inside the company can actually know that for sure, but it's not looking as good as it once did for those of us on the outside.
We had a few really fun missions. But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game. They don't. The bar is set, and it's set really, really high. And we can hit and exceed that bar in a multiplayer
Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money. So we took the multiplayer shortcut that is so popular these days.
Sometimes I really miss the computer games of the 90's. They provided such an outstanding single-player experience.:(
Slashdot Mirror
No. That is why you use a "standard" Window Manager like MetaCity. It's intended to do the heavy lifting of screen layout while the application instructs the WM according to the agreed upon protocols.
Do I think that the Mozilla developers should do it as a mainline part of the Mozilla/Gecko codebase? No. Do I think it should be done as a separate project built on top of the Mozilla platform? Yes. The latter does not necessarily mean a reduction in the developer support for the Mozilla codebase, and may actually attract new developers to working on improving the platform.
I do not understand this point. The Mozilla Platform is NOT a web browser. The Mozilla Platform is a collection of desktop and web technologies that can be used to construct a web browser. Or a variety of other applications. This is no different than the Win32 or Cocoa APIs, both of which contain support for Web Technologies in addition to standard desktop technologies. Thus Win32 systems have Internet Explorer (based on MSHTML renderer), Cocoa systems have Safari (based on WebKit renderer), and Mozilla systems have Firefox (based on Gecko renderer).
Your understanding is incorrect. Javascript/ECMAScript is a full language limited only by its APIs. For XUL applications, Javascript apps have access to the complete XPCOM library; an API similar in concept to Win32 or Cocoa.
As touched upon in a recent discussion on a Slashdot book review, the primary issue with Javascript is that the majority of those who think they know how to program in it, do not.
First off, this is neither here nor there. Issues affecting a desktop web browser do not relate to a desktop application unless it choses to provide web browser services. At that point, the standard issues with accessing network resources apply. It is up to the individual application to find a method of dealing with network security. Just as it is up to any network-enabled Windows or Mac application to deal with network security.
Incorrect. Java has surpassed C++ in a variety of benchmarks. Anyone who has paid attention to Java within the last 7 years is aware of these benchmarks. (Example) While perceived performance problems exist (e.g. slow startup, "feel" of GUI, etc.) the Virtual Machine itself is actually quite fast by virtue of runtime optimizations.
The C64 did not JIT the BASIC code. It is well known
Yes, actually. It's shocking to me that you don't know that.
The mods usually do a pretty good job, but when it comes to this topic it would seem that they've all been on crack.
It's not, "How are they going to pull that off?", it's "How are they pulling that off?". The system may still be in development, but it is very much up and running. It's not all that difficult to imagine when you realize that they wrote the JVM and the JIT in Java, then self-compiled the JVM using its own JIT. Link in a bootloader and a few hundred lines of assembly for hardware-access routines, and you have an executable OS for running Java. Feel free to download the source and see for yourself.
Choice? The entire point of OSS is to provide choice. If you don't like it, don't use it.
The Mozilla Platform is a platform first, a browser second. That's why it took them so damn long to develop it in the first place. Modern web technologies actually demand that web browsers be application platforms. Mozilla takes it one step further by being a flexible platform for local applications as well as rich client applications.
When you look at FireFox, you see a web browser. But in truth, that is incidental. All you're really seeing is a XUL-based application. Which is why there are other popular applications like Thunderbird, Composer, Mozilla IRC, SunBird, etc. Should Mozilla also focus on making those applications the best Email/HTML Editor/IRC Client/Calendar applications and forget the platform they're developed on top of?
Check
Check
And now allow me to qualify those statements.
MozCreator is still in development. However, the desktop hasn't been developed at all. So there's not much of an issue there, yet. Also, you can always use a generic IDE environment like JEdit until MozCreator is ready. (Seriously? IDEs are overrated anyway.)
VLC is about as high quality as you can get when it comes to video and multimedia support. It regularly shows Windows Media Player the door when a user tries both of them out. And some work has already been done to integrate VLC as a Mozilla plugin. Not that such a plugin is necessary. VLC would run on such a desktop system as-is. The only reason to bother integrating them is to create an embedable media player ala the GStreamer APIs. (GStreamer is also overrated.) Or they could just integrate with GStreamer and be done with it.
So there's no inherent blocks on either of those fronts. And if a Mozilla desktop were really to be created, you can be sure that additional tools and APIs would follow.
First off, it's not an OS. It's a Desktop Environment. ("Graphical Shell" in old skool parlance.) The Desktop Environment goes on top of the OS. Which could be Linux, FreeBSD, or even OpenSolaris.
Secondly, it's not that crazy of an idea. I've played around with the concept a bit myself. Both through the HTML engine and the XUL engine. The HTML engine makes more sense for "thin" (or "rich") applications that are downloaded on the fly and communicate with a server. The XUL makes more sense if you want a heavyweight desktop that can integrate with the X11 framework. Programs based on the XUL/XPCOM framework would use XULRunner to launch. All neat and tidy; though a bit of a pain to develop XPCOM interfaces between Javascript and C/C++.
The concept works because X11 is about as flexible as you can get for a desktop system. All you need is a Window Manager that recognizes standardized messages and Atoms (the X11 kind, not the Mozilla kind) and you can position, place, float, stick, minimize, or maximize any window you want pretty easily. So you throw a taskbar window out there to track the other windows, throw a start menu applet on there, have a file-browser application stuck as the Desktop, and you're pretty much ready to go.
XPCOM is even reasonably complete enough to where it provides services similar to the NeXT/Cocoa APIs. They'd need to be extended some if you wanted to support access to the complete environment (especially fixing that mess they have for File I/O), but it's a very workable base.
I don't think they're so much as "misinformed" as the really big companies (e.g. Lockheed, Boeing, ... that's about it) feed so tightly off of NASA and the government that it really doesn't seem like they're private anymore.
;-)
That, and everyone loves an underdog.
IEEE 829 - "Test Procedure Specification"
:)
It's a "standard" for software quality control. A bit like the ISO 9000 certification that Scott Adams likes to make fun of.
Right here:
/ description/se/829-1998_desc.html
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std_public
(For those who didn't know, yes they really exist.)
He's already said that they don't prune the researchers like that. Which already makes his argument specious. It seems to me that someone who's not in your top talent who's managed to pull off a trick like this at least shows promise. So you're going to cut off any new talent or support talent you might have.
It's like saying, "I need my hand to drive, but it won't hurt anything if I cut off my fingers."
Oh, so you do let them past the restrictions? Officially sanctioned and everything, I see? So basically you're telling me that your best talent would have no trouble defeating your measures (as I surmised) so you don't even try to put them in place for them? Why don't you try putting those measures in place for the researchers, and see how long your company has top talent in that area?
I think that right there sums up your attitude nicely. You treat your researchers like royalty (as you should), but apparently have no problems firing any of the support staff that might be critical to the researcher's work. Because, you know, they're not smart. They're just duh codeded minkeys. Anyone who shows a smidge of ingenuity and talent by getting past your firewall restrictions must, by defintion, be stupider than the rest. Weed 'em out!
Remind me never to work for your company. Or hire you.
I love it when people put words into my mouth. Not.
Time == Money
Therefore, if they need more time to get the single player to a "fun" state, then it's going to cost more money. Whereas if they've already got the multiplayer up and running, they can cheat on a lot of the game content by using HI rather than AI to do fun things like setup ambushes, provide a challenging dogfight, guard the embankments, etc.
You're telling me that your tpo talent is not computer literate enough to make childs play out of your proxy blocks? I would think you'd be hiring the smart people. You know, the ones who use computers (and even some custom programs) to do much of their research, simulation, and experiment tracking?
Computer knowledge is pretty prevasive in the sciences these days. It needs to be, otherwise the research doesn't get done. So as I said, way to rid yourself of talent.
Way to remove your best talent there, chief.
And drive away the possibility of any new talent.
If you want to know what they should really do, read the second page of my latest blog article. I didn't realize it before, but it seems I came prepared for this article! :P
You know what I just realized? My current sig suggests a business model that makes better use of the Commodore name than these guys are. What an interesting coincidence that ended up being.
What, like this? I thought everyone knew about VICE? You can (legally!) get all the ROMs you want at C64.com. And if you want real C64 hardware, it costs less than $20. Oh, and you can mod it to your heart's desire without feeling bad about it.
I fail to see the nastolgia in this. I have a Commodore 64 sitting at home. This new behometh looks nothing like it, nor does it evoke any sense of the original. Nor is it even close to the grace of the Amiga. So I'd say, "treading on memories and goodwill" is pretty close, wouldn't you?
Um. Okay?
It's a box. That's painted. If that appeals to you, good for you! To each their own. But it still has nothing to do with Commodore. It's just a label slapped on an unreleated company to generate press.
I'm not really sure why you're mentioning expansion cards. I have no doubt that these are internally expandable. Just like you'd expect any machine of these specs to be. I also have no doubt that they'll be incredibly expensive, and highly impractical when compared to what you could custom-build for less. *shrug*
Please do not take this as sarcasm, because it is not intended as such. Thank You! I was worried that I'd get jumped on for "not liking Japanamation" or something screwy like that. My only concern is that the case design shown is not the Giana Sisters. That looks more like Pokemon with a new name slapped on it.
Ok, I'm back. Looking at the "Gravel" (who names this stuff?), I'm much more impressed by it than I am their PC offerings. The CNet article shows a very compact device that appears to be well suited to portable television applications. I must say that I'm impressed. At least with the form factor and control scheme. The memory size seems to be a bit of a show-stopper, though. It doesn't take much to fill up 2 GB (or even 4 GB) of storage. With iPod videos starting at 30GB, this thing looks woefully small for the task.
Of course, that's something that can always be fixed in future revisions. If it's going to fail in the marketplace, it will be because it lacks content. No media player ever sells without content. And with Apple sewing up the downloadable television/movie market, I'm not sure where that leaves the Gravel. (Groveling, perhaps?) It's a neat device irrespective of its Commodore branding, but I sincerely hope that The New Commodore(TM) has some content distribution deals in the works.
Alienware is not a serious competitor. At least not any longer. They're just another Dell brand.
Also, it's probably worth noting that the really high end systems are often hand-built. That way you can get both the hardware you want, and the case design you want. Many of the 'Gaming PCs' tend to be targeted at the market of wannabes who have too much money and not enough sense.
I'm so sorry, am I missing something here? Because "pretty damn gorgeous" is not how I'd describe these machines. "Pretty damn hideous" is a bit closer. "Treading on someone else's memories and goodwill to make a buck" is even better. "Looking li-"
OMFG! What the hell is that Giana Sisters skin!?!?! ('scuse me, C-Kin)
My beautiful sisters! What has become of you!?! I... I... I...
I think I need to go now. If you'll pardon me. I... need to find the nearest restroom before I hurl.
I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less. After all the trouble that Microsoft has gone through to convince the US Feds and EU committees that they "innovate", I can't help but wonder if a flying chair isn't in this guy's future.
There were definitely some good games of the 80's. However, they didn't quite get that "Wow" impact until the 90's. You know, the impact you got just starting the game and taking in the movie-like intros before jumping into the fray/cockpit/story/whatever. Origin was probably the company that most pushed the idea that a great game and a great looking game are not mutually exclusive. That idea was later picked up by other studios like Westwood, who went on to create wonderful games wrapped in wonderful and immersive visuals.
Now those studios are gone. All gone. *sniff* Thanks a lump, EA. >:-(
Ok, joking aside, am I the only one who finds Balmer's complaint a bit hypocritical? It's true that Microsoft has incredible sums of cash. However, Windows and Office are pretty much the only things making Microsoft that cash. Nearly every other portion of the company either contributes very little to the bottom line, or actually loses Microsoft money. I imagine that's part of the reason why Microsoft keeps bundling extra software services with Windows: At least it raises the value of the software package. (In theory, anyway.)
That being said, I am going to (*gasp*) agree with him on one point. Having a bunch of programmers sitting around does not accomplish anything. They have to be in a full-on creative environment to do the truly impressive stuff. I think that the environment is slowly dissolving as Google loses it cohesion as a tight-knit company. They're growing incredibly fast, and I'm not sure they're really getting a good return on that growth. Obviously, only those inside the company can actually know that for sure, but it's not looking as good as it once did for those of us on the outside.
Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money. So we took the multiplayer shortcut that is so popular these days.
Sometimes I really miss the computer games of the 90's. They provided such an outstanding single-player experience.