There are two types of individuals looks for jobs, both have similar resume experience. One has the ability for abstract problem solving and conceptualization, and the other can only repeat what they are shown. Which do you hire?
Look, I don't think every job requires the same set of skills. They also don't require the same problem solving skills or background. I also don't think that a single question even BEGINS to cover the gamut of problems a potential hire will have to face. If you're going to hire competant people, you have to hire people who want to learn. If you're going to hire people who will lead teams you will need the aforementioned skill AND the ability to solve problems with the resources at hand. Here is where the problem becomes more human.
The problem with only hiring abstract thinkers is that you have a bunch of smart people quabbling over the details when you put them together. I don't know how many times the big picture gets lost when a bunch of smart people get in a room. At times you need decision makers, at others you need problem solvers, at others you need pawns. If you don't balance your team you're not doing yourself any favors.
Not only could they find 100 women in gaming, at any capacity, but they found 100 that are influential?
I'm actually astonished.
Not that I think that's a good thing-- I just think finding 100 *people* that are actually influential is astounding considering most gamers can't name more than 5 "celebrity" gaming figures, be it male or female. Granted, this is harldy the only test for "influence," but it's certainly not far fetched to think they are, perhaps, digging a bit deep to find 100 of only one (minority) gender.
Basically every friend I have has switched to the Mac in the past 2 years. That number is only accelerating. What's funny is that, the only hold-outs left are people who pirate everything they own.
I find more and more often that crackpots earn PhD's just so people will take their ill conceived ideas seriously. People need to remember two important things:
1) PhD's, contrary to the poster's blindingly stupid remark about education, are not more correct based on their education.
2) PhD's earn money by selling books and going on talk show circuits. Without an edgy topic, regardless of it's validity, they won't make money.
3) She knows what she's saying is highly controversial and probably bullshit. But she can form good arguements like any PhD can, which leaves the world with crap statements like: "Pac Mac is 62% violent."... Really? I guess based on her person's criteria, it is. But their criteria is obsurd and sensationalist. She's capitalizing on the furor that other crackpots keep repeating, that video games are violent and that they have a strong influence on the behavior of people. This is the kind of shoddy logic that, if played in global politics, would lead us to world war 3.
I guess I'll make up some criteria. She's 70% innacurate in her portrayal of a benign game like Pac Man being violent. If she wanted to rail on Grand Theft Auto I'd spot her 80% violent right off the top. But she chose Pac Man for the most impact. She's manipulating her audience. Don't be fooled.
Apple is not the one to blame. The entire industry has DRM'd music if it comes from a profitable record label. It's not just Apple. Apple is targeted by alarmist articles like this because it happens to be the most sucessful. It happens to be the most successful because of a couple critical things:
1) Apple invented the industry of digitally distributed music from big labels. 2) They have software and hardware integration that is rivaled by no one. 3) They are "cool."
Apple doesn't have a need for DRM'd music, aside from it being the ONLY WAY for them to sell the music in the first place. Without DRM'd music, the labels won't sell their music to consumers. However, it's pretty retarded for a couple reasons:
1) People who want to steal will always steal regardless of method or industry. 2) People who will pay will always pay. 3) People who are on the fence will steal if they can not get affordable options.
The majority of people would just buy the damn music for 99 cents and be done with it regardless of weather they got it illegally or legally, if it was of the quality they wanted. That is what paying for your content will get you, though. Less viruses, higher quality compression, and freebies, and discounts on volume (record versus song.)
At the end of the day, he's right. Yes, the bias is clear to understand but it's not hidden. It's right out there in the open for all to see. Let's look past that and listen to the message for just a second.
All he's saying is that the inclusion of a next generation movie format will be important to the success of the console. He's right for a couple of reasons.
1) Whoever wins this round of the format wars will be the last optical format for the delivery of movies and games.
2) By shipping a popular game console with a next-generation format, SONY has a *significant* advantage of HD-DVD.
3) Blu-ray can hold a lot more per disc than a DVD, and even an HD-DVD.
4) Online distribution will only increase over time. Eventually this will replace optical formats as the primary means of software and movie distribution. Sony wins on both accounts because they will control both ends of the distribution chain.
5) In order to position the 360 or Wii as true convergence machines in the near future, both consoles will require an optical format to sustain themselves until online distribution eclipses optical. NEITHER HAVE IT. And if they add it later, it will create confusion and SKU's that won't have the same abilities. By not coming out of the gate with a next generation format, they both loose this critical angle.
6) HDTV will become the norm over the next 5 years, which is SONY's prime selling window for PS3. In this time it will cover both te optical and digital distribution of movies and games for HD format.
What is the only negative? Initial cost until the price of Blu-ray production comes down. That's not that big of a deal really. It's not goi to even DENT the initial sales. Early adopters will pay whatever it takes. Over time, the price of the fully equipped HDMI SKU will decrease in price, reducing the entry point for the people who will be purchasing the console in 2007 and beyond.
I would *love* for you to point out the $2,000 "dongle" on a Mac. Do yourself a favor and spec out a PC with the same specs, build quality, and packaged software. This is really, really simple math. The Mac mini is the closest you wil get to a "bargain" PC, and even that is of high quality with a superb software suite. While a lot of my qualitative arguments are subjective, you can't argue against one quantitative argument: MACS DO NOT COST MORE THAN AN EQUIVALENT PC.
It's a simple truth that when you're ponying up montly fees to play a game, you're going to want to play that game to feel like you've got value out of your dollar. In that sense, it's seems unlikely that most people would play more than one MMO at a time. It's too much of a financial burden to justify a very small portion of your month, at the same rates, to play a second or third MMO.
Next is the issue of time in cooperative gameplay. I don't know about you guys, but most gamers have a day job and a life outside of gaming. An MMO cuts into the latter immediately, and in extreme cases it can cut into you day job. For people that enjoy a good social life, a book, a movie, their significant other, their children, their parents, and so forth, it's a tall order to take much time away from any of those. To commit the time to play in a cooperative environment, especially in a clan structure, can literally be impossible for working people with a family. To justify that monthly cost of an MMO, you need to play it. To play it, you need time you don't have. So, if you can possibly squeeze in time to play 10 hours a week at particular clan-coordinated times, you're only doing it for one MMO.
This is why I won't buy a game like WOW. It's going to suck me in. It's going to take me away from a lot of other things. So, I buy single player games that I can pick up at any time and put down at any given length later. I even like games like Guild Wars, where there is no monthly fee but simply episodic content releases.
A significant number of people who did nothing wrong will be hassled by WGA, whereas the determined pirate will continue his illegal copying of Windows. At the end of the day, this is the outcome of any copy protection scheme-- those who were on the fence about copying, or don't have the technical knowledge about how to circumvent the protection, will perhaps pony up the cash for a legit copy. (Or, in this case, have a legit copy and still be harassed.) Those who would have paid will continue to pay, and those who would have copied will continue to copy.
Maybe if Microsoft made the feature set crippled or mad Windows (Vista?) suck a lot less, this wouldn't be as much of a problem for them.
I can't think of a condition that would more accurately decribe my need to constantly:
1) have new challenges at my job 2) travel to new places 3) live in NYC where you're always meeting new people and going to new places 4) have the latest gadgets... it all makes sense now.
Sheesh. I just came from Digg.com to see what scraps were left on Slashdot, and the top link is a story about how it doesn't matter anymore. Hmmmm.
While I agree Slashdot is no longer the king, largely supplanted by Digg, it's approach is NOT obsolete. Sure, it's website sucks and hasn't had any user-facing usability changes EVER... but I respect the editorial power it has.
I don't believe the majority knows what's best for me-- but Digg.com sure has an interesting future. If anything, it'll fall under it's own weight when it's credibility is compromised by the very people being it's editors. But I also think they know what they're doing over there and will find a way to mitigate that risk.
In the meantime, Slashdot will seeminly be stuck in time forever. But is it the tortoise or the hare that wins this race?
Look, it doesn't take a clinical psychologist to recognize immaturity in adulthood. I could have pointed to my ex-finace' as a prime example of someone who was a good 10 years behind the curve. It's amazing how some people don't learn how to deal with real life situations and revert to child like reactions. Nobody is perfect but I certainly see a lot of simple minded reaction to complex issues.
If IE was standards compliant and secure, people wouldn't care. Features are nice, but features can be implemented by the king of the hill once the kinks are ironed out by the underdogs.
As a web designer / developer I'd be happy enough if people who stuck with IE would at least get a good representation of standards compliant rendering of CSS, HTML, and JavaScript. That's the *first* step that is *required* of Internet Explorer.
I never played Mario 64. I played Zelda: Ocarina for about 10 minutes before I hated it. The only thing that makes a Nintendo 64 worth having is Goldeneye. That was, without doubt, the finest FPS on a console to date. Sure it's dated now but I think it was even more defining than Halo. Here's the problem Nintendo faces: when you (arguably) only have ONE game worth purchasing your platform for, you don't get licensing fees. Sure, you sold a system. Little to no money is made in that process. If you only make, say, $20 off me for one game that's NOTHING.
On the other hand, while the PS2 had a slow start, it has SOLID franchises only available on that platform: Sly Cooper, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Gran Tourismo, Metal Gear Solid, etc. It also has every game the other platforms have. I have over 25 games for my PS2. That's obviously a high number, as some are gifts, etc. But the SAME ARGUEMENT used by every Fanboy of a particular platform wil be the same: *my* platform are where the games are at.
Current Generation Status: -- Nintendo GameCube: 2 or 3 games unique enough to justify a purchase.
-- Playstataion 2: Most SCEA title... there's DOZENS.
-- XBox: Halo. That's it.
Next Generation Hype: -- Nintendo Wii: Aside from "worst name ever", this will fall into the same category as the GameCube. A niche player that will attract all the Nintendo fanboys and do little to lure anyone else away. The biggest plus it has going for it will be price. There's nothing wrong with any of that-- I'll use the Apple argument: Nintendo could be 3rd place for the rest of time and be profitable and happy.
-- Playstation 3: SONY will probably have a rocky start, but FREE online play and e-distribution with the built in HD will be essential. Also essential are the 25-35 crowd who want Blu-ray, can afford it, and like to play games. They're numerous. Will have a ton of unique titles, most of which will be 6 months after launch. Price could hurt it but that will come down with time. IMHO, easily the winner of the living room battle if they get a killer game to market.
-- XBOX 360: No unique content. If you have a PC, you have an XBox 360. Same old story as the Xbox 1. It's killer features are e-distribution and awesome UI. Probably selling more consoles due to lack of other next-generation systems, but again the success will be in number of GAMES sold, not UNITS sold.
I fail to find the same issues the poster has with dropping pre-2k builds of Firefox. First of all, you're running Windows. That's strike 1. Second, you're complaining that you have to run an OS that is less than 6 years old. Strike 2. That's obsurd in a consumer environment.
If the poster was a Mac user, he'd be compliaining about lack of OS 9 support.
I'm pretty sure my high school debate teacher told me that, if I want to win an argument, I don't want to alienate the audience. By claiming that the software is "infected" you pretty much loose before you can make your pitch.
"We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
*sigh*
No, actually it wasn't that big of a deal. Our priorities in this country baffle me sometimes. The rampant violence in this game wasn't bad in their eyes. Some rough sex and they draw the line? Come on, you had to mod the program just to see it!
... and consider it rampant rumor from a publication which is RARELY if EVER correct on tech news. Sorry, but their track record is about as good as MacOSRumors.com.
Okay... my point is that it's one thing to make a good educated guess on a good beavior. It's another to subject your users to a barrage of horrible usability and pass it off as "beta." That's not beta. For god's sake, if the level of usability currently in the OS was hand picked as a viable option I feel sorry for Microsoft. *THAT* was as good as they could do without user input? I don't believe that. I think at some level they thought it was a good idea. And that's why I worry.
Sorry SanDisk, but fighting Apple at it's own game is an utter and completely useless endeavor to which you will sink money and time for little reward. It'll be fun to watch... but the blood bath of corporate heads rolling after this "*fight" will be seen for miles.
* I call this a fight only in the most technical of senses. It's more of a one sided ass handing.
To say anyone could beat Apple at it's own game is to say someone could out-Grinch Bill Gates. It just ain't gonna happen. Look around. Some people are the alphas, and some hurl shit and harvest fruits and berries. You're the latter.
One of my favorite franchises has just released a new game for the PC -- Heroes of Might and Magic V. I can't wait to get it. I have a PC that I had originally bought to run a specific piece of high end software for a job. Turns out it's a kick ass game machine. Upgraded the GPU and I'm off to the races. But I'm going to wait until this game is released on the Mac to support Mac gaming. For a Mac gamer, it's as much about advocacy as it is anything else. I'd dare say anything but casual gamers have a console, PC, or combination in the wing to anchor their gaming.
I have a MacBook Pro 2.16 all decked out. It should run HOMM5 beautifully. I'll support Mac gaming by waiting on this one (as I could have done for Doom 3 and Quake 4... but didn't.)
I think Mac gaming is there for the taking. I find that, because of the way the OS is written, you're never going to get that last 10% or so of FPS. But most people really don't care. Most people who enjoy games just want to get the latest stuff and have it playable.
No, this isn't even close to be the same. Vista asks you for confirmation of nearly everything you can possible do on the computer. At no point did OS X do this. While *installation* of applications have always asked for confirmation, and access to your Keychain has also, pretty much nothing else does. Vista, on the other hand, is about a gnat's hair away from asking you to confirm "Did you really want to click?"
I've used the beta. It's awful. The usability of the file "explorer" is atrociously convoluded. It makes it even more complicated to know what's going on that XP did. And, to keep this on topic-- the security measures are astoundingly invasive. Vista seemingly asks you to confirm the same type of function, triggered in the same way, but by different applications. Look, if I want port 80 HTTP requests to go through, I want them to go through all the frickin' time. Don't make me repeat myself. (Yes, this is only an example but it's indicative of the process you'll go through time and time again.)
Maybe it's the horrible presentation of the dialogs that does it? They offer ZERO information about what *application* (in English instead of seemingly random strings of letters and numbers!!!!) wants your attention. It also offers no real understanding of what is being asked of you. Microsoft, for all they did correctly with the xbox 360 interface, needs to learn how to design a dialog. Here's a fine example:
I open a jpeg file or some other seemingly harmless thing. I get a security alert box that unnecessarily shares the shit out of me with it's inappropriate use of iconography. It says something incomprehensible like this:
Application gobbleygook.exe is attempting to access suckit.dll. Do you want to want to allow this? (This is considered a minor threat.)
Oh. Great. So some EXE with a name I don't recognize wants access to a DLL (what's that-- hahaha?) that I also don't recognize. Now that I'm completely lost, Windows tells me this is not that much of a threat and I can probably click "allow" for the application I don't know to open the dll I don't know to do some task that I have no clue to what it's purpose is. Super.
I'm trying to make a point by being a bit funny about this-- but Microsoft really needs MAJOR improvement to this process. First, don't assume everything is a threat and scare a user into confirming something that is not needed. Second, improve the presentation. Third, figure out how to discen between Malware and your own software!
I'm not concerned if it's upgradable and, frakly, I won't be too concerned with the PS3 until I see what it can do. Can it do twice what the Wii or Xbox 360 can? That remains to be seen.
Well, that's easy. It will play (insert infinite number here) more High Definition movies than any other console out of the box. Love it or hate it, this is an integral part of the HD movement. by having an HD capable delivery platform, HD will take off. HD sets will fall in price, and so will the cost for movies with volume.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two types of individuals looks for jobs, both have similar resume experience. One has the ability for abstract problem solving and conceptualization, and the other can only repeat what they are shown. Which do you hire?
Look, I don't think every job requires the same set of skills. They also don't require the same problem solving skills or background. I also don't think that a single question even BEGINS to cover the gamut of problems a potential hire will have to face. If you're going to hire competant people, you have to hire people who want to learn. If you're going to hire people who will lead teams you will need the aforementioned skill AND the ability to solve problems with the resources at hand. Here is where the problem becomes more human.
The problem with only hiring abstract thinkers is that you have a bunch of smart people quabbling over the details when you put them together. I don't know how many times the big picture gets lost when a bunch of smart people get in a room. At times you need decision makers, at others you need problem solvers, at others you need pawns. If you don't balance your team you're not doing yourself any favors.
I, for one, enjoy seeing the RIAA waste millions and millions of dollars in a fruitless effort to stop piracy. It's fun.
Wait for it ... wait for it ...
Not only could they find 100 women in gaming, at any capacity, but they found 100 that are influential?
I'm actually astonished.
Not that I think that's a good thing-- I just think finding 100 *people* that are actually influential is astounding considering most gamers can't name more than 5 "celebrity" gaming figures, be it male or female. Granted, this is harldy the only test for "influence," but it's certainly not far fetched to think they are, perhaps, digging a bit deep to find 100 of only one (minority) gender.
Here's to hoping things change!
Basically every friend I have has switched to the Mac in the past 2 years. That number is only accelerating. What's funny is that, the only hold-outs left are people who pirate everything they own.
The PhD's argument really pisses me off.
... Really? I guess based on her person's criteria, it is. But their criteria is obsurd and sensationalist. She's capitalizing on the furor that other crackpots keep repeating, that video games are violent and that they have a strong influence on the behavior of people. This is the kind of shoddy logic that, if played in global politics, would lead us to world war 3.
I find more and more often that crackpots earn PhD's just so people will take their ill conceived ideas seriously. People need to remember two important things:
1) PhD's, contrary to the poster's blindingly stupid remark about education, are not more correct based on their education.
2) PhD's earn money by selling books and going on talk show circuits. Without an edgy topic, regardless of it's validity, they won't make money.
3) She knows what she's saying is highly controversial and probably bullshit. But she can form good arguements like any PhD can, which leaves the world with crap statements like: "Pac Mac is 62% violent."
I guess I'll make up some criteria. She's 70% innacurate in her portrayal of a benign game like Pac Man being violent. If she wanted to rail on Grand Theft Auto I'd spot her 80% violent right off the top. But she chose Pac Man for the most impact. She's manipulating her audience. Don't be fooled.
Apple is not the one to blame. The entire industry has DRM'd music if it comes from a profitable record label. It's not just Apple. Apple is targeted by alarmist articles like this because it happens to be the most sucessful. It happens to be the most successful because of a couple critical things:
1) Apple invented the industry of digitally distributed music from big labels.
2) They have software and hardware integration that is rivaled by no one.
3) They are "cool."
Apple doesn't have a need for DRM'd music, aside from it being the ONLY WAY for them to sell the music in the first place. Without DRM'd music, the labels won't sell their music to consumers. However, it's pretty retarded for a couple reasons:
1) People who want to steal will always steal regardless of method or industry.
2) People who will pay will always pay.
3) People who are on the fence will steal if they can not get affordable options.
The majority of people would just buy the damn music for 99 cents and be done with it regardless of weather they got it illegally or legally, if it was of the quality they wanted. That is what paying for your content will get you, though. Less viruses, higher quality compression, and freebies, and discounts on volume (record versus song.)
At the end of the day, he's right. Yes, the bias is clear to understand but it's not hidden. It's right out there in the open for all to see. Let's look past that and listen to the message for just a second.
All he's saying is that the inclusion of a next generation movie format will be important to the success of the console. He's right for a couple of reasons.
1) Whoever wins this round of the format wars will be the last optical format for the delivery of movies and games.
2) By shipping a popular game console with a next-generation format, SONY has a *significant* advantage of HD-DVD.
3) Blu-ray can hold a lot more per disc than a DVD, and even an HD-DVD.
4) Online distribution will only increase over time. Eventually this will replace optical formats as the primary means of software and movie distribution. Sony wins on both accounts because they will control both ends of the distribution chain.
5) In order to position the 360 or Wii as true convergence machines in the near future, both consoles will require an optical format to sustain themselves until online distribution eclipses optical. NEITHER HAVE IT. And if they add it later, it will create confusion and SKU's that won't have the same abilities. By not coming out of the gate with a next generation format, they both loose this critical angle.
6) HDTV will become the norm over the next 5 years, which is SONY's prime selling window for PS3. In this time it will cover both te optical and digital distribution of movies and games for HD format.
What is the only negative? Initial cost until the price of Blu-ray production comes down. That's not that big of a deal really. It's not goi to even DENT the initial sales. Early adopters will pay whatever it takes. Over time, the price of the fully equipped HDMI SKU will decrease in price, reducing the entry point for the people who will be purchasing the console in 2007 and beyond.
I would *love* for you to point out the $2,000 "dongle" on a Mac. Do yourself a favor and spec out a PC with the same specs, build quality, and packaged software. This is really, really simple math. The Mac mini is the closest you wil get to a "bargain" PC, and even that is of high quality with a superb software suite. While a lot of my qualitative arguments are subjective, you can't argue against one quantitative argument: MACS DO NOT COST MORE THAN AN EQUIVALENT PC.
It's a simple truth that when you're ponying up montly fees to play a game, you're going to want to play that game to feel like you've got value out of your dollar. In that sense, it's seems unlikely that most people would play more than one MMO at a time. It's too much of a financial burden to justify a very small portion of your month, at the same rates, to play a second or third MMO.
Next is the issue of time in cooperative gameplay. I don't know about you guys, but most gamers have a day job and a life outside of gaming. An MMO cuts into the latter immediately, and in extreme cases it can cut into you day job. For people that enjoy a good social life, a book, a movie, their significant other, their children, their parents, and so forth, it's a tall order to take much time away from any of those. To commit the time to play in a cooperative environment, especially in a clan structure, can literally be impossible for working people with a family. To justify that monthly cost of an MMO, you need to play it. To play it, you need time you don't have. So, if you can possibly squeeze in time to play 10 hours a week at particular clan-coordinated times, you're only doing it for one MMO.
This is why I won't buy a game like WOW. It's going to suck me in. It's going to take me away from a lot of other things. So, I buy single player games that I can pick up at any time and put down at any given length later. I even like games like Guild Wars, where there is no monthly fee but simply episodic content releases.
A significant number of people who did nothing wrong will be hassled by WGA, whereas the determined pirate will continue his illegal copying of Windows. At the end of the day, this is the outcome of any copy protection scheme-- those who were on the fence about copying, or don't have the technical knowledge about how to circumvent the protection, will perhaps pony up the cash for a legit copy. (Or, in this case, have a legit copy and still be harassed.) Those who would have paid will continue to pay, and those who would have copied will continue to copy.
Maybe if Microsoft made the feature set crippled or mad Windows (Vista?) suck a lot less, this wouldn't be as much of a problem for them.
I can't think of a condition that would more accurately decribe my need to constantly:
... it all makes sense now.
1) have new challenges at my job
2) travel to new places
3) live in NYC where you're always meeting new people and going to new places
4) have the latest gadgets
Sheesh. I just came from Digg.com to see what scraps were left on Slashdot, and the top link is a story about how it doesn't matter anymore. Hmmmm.
... but I respect the editorial power it has.
While I agree Slashdot is no longer the king, largely supplanted by Digg, it's approach is NOT obsolete. Sure, it's website sucks and hasn't had any user-facing usability changes EVER
I don't believe the majority knows what's best for me-- but Digg.com sure has an interesting future. If anything, it'll fall under it's own weight when it's credibility is compromised by the very people being it's editors. But I also think they know what they're doing over there and will find a way to mitigate that risk.
In the meantime, Slashdot will seeminly be stuck in time forever. But is it the tortoise or the hare that wins this race?
Look, it doesn't take a clinical psychologist to recognize immaturity in adulthood. I could have pointed to my ex-finace' as a prime example of someone who was a good 10 years behind the curve. It's amazing how some people don't learn how to deal with real life situations and revert to child like reactions. Nobody is perfect but I certainly see a lot of simple minded reaction to complex issues.
If IE was standards compliant and secure, people wouldn't care. Features are nice, but features can be implemented by the king of the hill once the kinks are ironed out by the underdogs.
As a web designer / developer I'd be happy enough if people who stuck with IE would at least get a good representation of standards compliant rendering of CSS, HTML, and JavaScript. That's the *first* step that is *required* of Internet Explorer.
I never played Mario 64. I played Zelda: Ocarina for about 10 minutes before I hated it. The only thing that makes a Nintendo 64 worth having is Goldeneye. That was, without doubt, the finest FPS on a console to date. Sure it's dated now but I think it was even more defining than Halo. Here's the problem Nintendo faces: when you (arguably) only have ONE game worth purchasing your platform for, you don't get licensing fees. Sure, you sold a system. Little to no money is made in that process. If you only make, say, $20 off me for one game that's NOTHING.
On the other hand, while the PS2 had a slow start, it has SOLID franchises only available on that platform: Sly Cooper, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Gran Tourismo, Metal Gear Solid, etc. It also has every game the other platforms have. I have over 25 games for my PS2. That's obviously a high number, as some are gifts, etc. But the SAME ARGUEMENT used by every Fanboy of a particular platform wil be the same: *my* platform are where the games are at.
Current Generation Status:
-- Nintendo GameCube: 2 or 3 games unique enough to justify a purchase.
-- Playstataion 2: Most SCEA title... there's DOZENS.
-- XBox: Halo. That's it.
Next Generation Hype:
-- Nintendo Wii: Aside from "worst name ever", this will fall into the same category as the GameCube. A niche player that will attract all the Nintendo fanboys and do little to lure anyone else away. The biggest plus it has going for it will be price. There's nothing wrong with any of that-- I'll use the Apple argument: Nintendo could be 3rd place for the rest of time and be profitable and happy.
-- Playstation 3: SONY will probably have a rocky start, but FREE online play and e-distribution with the built in HD will be essential. Also essential are the 25-35 crowd who want Blu-ray, can afford it, and like to play games. They're numerous. Will have a ton of unique titles, most of which will be 6 months after launch. Price could hurt it but that will come down with time. IMHO, easily the winner of the living room battle if they get a killer game to market.
-- XBOX 360: No unique content. If you have a PC, you have an XBox 360. Same old story as the Xbox 1. It's killer features are e-distribution and awesome UI. Probably selling more consoles due to lack of other next-generation systems, but again the success will be in number of GAMES sold, not UNITS sold.
I fail to find the same issues the poster has with dropping pre-2k builds of Firefox. First of all, you're running Windows. That's strike 1. Second, you're complaining that you have to run an OS that is less than 6 years old. Strike 2. That's obsurd in a consumer environment.
If the poster was a Mac user, he'd be compliaining about lack of OS 9 support.
I'm pretty sure my high school debate teacher told me that, if I want to win an argument, I don't want to alienate the audience. By claiming that the software is "infected" you pretty much loose before you can make your pitch.
"We allege that Take-Two and Rockstar's actions undermined the industry's own rating system and deceived consumers,' commented Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection."
*sigh*
No, actually it wasn't that big of a deal. Our priorities in this country baffle me sometimes. The rampant violence in this game wasn't bad in their eyes. Some rough sex and they draw the line? Come on, you had to mod the program just to see it!
I hope enough people see through this charade.
... and consider it rampant rumor from a publication which is RARELY if EVER correct on tech news. Sorry, but their track record is about as good as MacOSRumors.com.
Touche'
I pretty much agree with everything you said. Good points.
Okay ... my point is that it's one thing to make a good educated guess on a good beavior. It's another to subject your users to a barrage of horrible usability and pass it off as "beta." That's not beta. For god's sake, if the level of usability currently in the OS was hand picked as a viable option I feel sorry for Microsoft. *THAT* was as good as they could do without user input? I don't believe that. I think at some level they thought it was a good idea. And that's why I worry.
:-)
I used an alpha labelled as a beta.
Sorry SanDisk, but fighting Apple at it's own game is an utter and completely useless endeavor to which you will sink money and time for little reward. It'll be fun to watch ... but the blood bath of corporate heads rolling after this "*fight" will be seen for miles.
* I call this a fight only in the most technical of senses. It's more of a one sided ass handing.
To say anyone could beat Apple at it's own game is to say someone could out-Grinch Bill Gates. It just ain't gonna happen. Look around. Some people are the alphas, and some hurl shit and harvest fruits and berries. You're the latter.
- steve jobs
One of my favorite franchises has just released a new game for the PC -- Heroes of Might and Magic V. I can't wait to get it. I have a PC that I had originally bought to run a specific piece of high end software for a job. Turns out it's a kick ass game machine. Upgraded the GPU and I'm off to the races. But I'm going to wait until this game is released on the Mac to support Mac gaming. For a Mac gamer, it's as much about advocacy as it is anything else. I'd dare say anything but casual gamers have a console, PC, or combination in the wing to anchor their gaming.
... but didn't.)
I have a MacBook Pro 2.16 all decked out. It should run HOMM5 beautifully. I'll support Mac gaming by waiting on this one (as I could have done for Doom 3 and Quake 4
I think Mac gaming is there for the taking. I find that, because of the way the OS is written, you're never going to get that last 10% or so of FPS. But most people really don't care. Most people who enjoy games just want to get the latest stuff and have it playable.
No, this isn't even close to be the same. Vista asks you for confirmation of nearly everything you can possible do on the computer. At no point did OS X do this. While *installation* of applications have always asked for confirmation, and access to your Keychain has also, pretty much nothing else does. Vista, on the other hand, is about a gnat's hair away from asking you to confirm "Did you really want to click?"
I've used the beta. It's awful. The usability of the file "explorer" is atrociously convoluded. It makes it even more complicated to know what's going on that XP did. And, to keep this on topic-- the security measures are astoundingly invasive. Vista seemingly asks you to confirm the same type of function, triggered in the same way, but by different applications. Look, if I want port 80 HTTP requests to go through, I want them to go through all the frickin' time. Don't make me repeat myself. (Yes, this is only an example but it's indicative of the process you'll go through time and time again.)
Maybe it's the horrible presentation of the dialogs that does it? They offer ZERO information about what *application* (in English instead of seemingly random strings of letters and numbers!!!!) wants your attention. It also offers no real understanding of what is being asked of you. Microsoft, for all they did correctly with the xbox 360 interface, needs to learn how to design a dialog. Here's a fine example:
I open a jpeg file or some other seemingly harmless thing. I get a security alert box that unnecessarily shares the shit out of me with it's inappropriate use of iconography. It says something incomprehensible like this:
Application gobbleygook.exe is attempting to access suckit.dll. Do you want to want to allow this? (This is considered a minor threat.)
Oh. Great. So some EXE with a name I don't recognize wants access to a DLL (what's that-- hahaha?) that I also don't recognize. Now that I'm completely lost, Windows tells me this is not that much of a threat and I can probably click "allow" for the application I don't know to open the dll I don't know to do some task that I have no clue to what it's purpose is. Super.
I'm trying to make a point by being a bit funny about this-- but Microsoft really needs MAJOR improvement to this process. First, don't assume everything is a threat and scare a user into confirming something that is not needed. Second, improve the presentation. Third, figure out how to discen between Malware and your own software!
Well, that's easy. It will play (insert infinite number here) more High Definition movies than any other console out of the box. Love it or hate it, this is an integral part of the HD movement. by having an HD capable delivery platform, HD will take off. HD sets will fall in price, and so will the cost for movies with volume.